Sor ee oe etn thetn hate teatnale taal tothe atin 
Pte Dantes gi a of 


eee ES 
ett an Dag ne Toast 


Sn te aPe 
oer wt ~ ona 3 
OO, oy te ee 


roe = ME . win 
earn een ww 








BSI\9T 
i 6. HTT 
‘ae ae eA ¢ 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
In 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/sennacheribsinva0Ohono_0 


: 


ita ae 
, een | a 
i) GA ha. 

j of A r 4 f ; s 

\ f * » ‘ 


Ss 


+ 
| 


Tie 





SENNACHERIB’S INVASION 
OF PALESTINE 





CONTRIBUTIONS TO ORIENTAL HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY 


No. 12 


SEN NACHERIB’S INVASION 
OF PALESTINE 


MAC riicalsoouUrce otud y 


by 
LEO, Gy HONOR, Ph.D. 





New York 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
1926 


CopyrRiGHT, 1926 


By LEO L. HONOR 


Printed from type. Published June, 1926 


TO 
MY FATHER AND MOTHER 





NOTE 


The dissertation of Mr. Leo L. Honor was begun under the super- 
vision of my late colleague Dr. Frederick Augustus Vanderburgh. 
It deals with a subject that has always been of interest to students 
of the Biblical narrative, especially since the re-discovery of Baby- 
lonia and Assyria. 

Mr. Honor has gone with much care to the sources of the subject 
with the end in view of finding out their real value and of testing 
the relation that these sources bear one to the other. He has worked 
with much caution and has drawn conclusions with much prudence. 
I commend his work to all those who are interested in this period 
of history. 


RicHARD GOTTHEIL 
April 28, 1926. 


Vil 


; a if 


, iy 
rd 





TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


CuaptTer I. Part I—The Assyrian Sources . 


The Annals of Sennacherib 


B. The Display Inscriptions 
C. Inscriptions Later Than the Taylor Prism 
D. A Clay Impression of a Royal Seal . 


CuapTer I. Part Ii—Critical Analysis of the Account of 
Sennacherib’s Campaign Found in the Assyrian 
Annals 


Notes To CHAPTER | 


CuapTerR I]—The Biblical Account of Sennacherib’s Invasion 
of Palestine 
Aye Lik MVUT SAX TX. 37 \. 
B. II Chronicles XXXII 1-23 


Notes To CHaptTer II 


CuHapTer II1I—The Prophecies of Isaiah 
A. Ch. XXVIII-XXXIII 
B. Anti-Assyrian Prophecies 


C. Miscellaneous Prophecies 


Notes To CuHaptTer III 


Bibliography . 


Page 


11 
12 


13 
26 


116 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


_K. A. T. —Jirku, Altorientalischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. 
M. Catalogue —Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik 

Collection of the British Museum, v. I-V and Supplement. 
ieee 8 —Cambridge Ancient History. 
B 
ey 


> 


; —The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Coileges. — 

ne, I. B. I.—Cheyne, T. K., Introduction to the Book of Isaiah. 

iS. —Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. 

Ceesis —Schrader, E. Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testa- 
ment. 

at —Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British 

B 

h 


h 


Museum. 
3, —Hastings, J. Dictionary of the Bible. 
M. G. Z. —Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift. 
A. —Meyer, E. Geschichte des Alterthums. 
Hk, —Gottinger Handcommentar zum Alten Testament. 
as —Marti, K. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testa- 
ment. 

—The International Critical Commentary. 

—Journal Asiatique. 
S. —Journal American Oriental Society. 
iS 


BOGUS” CeAOOme: a 


—Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum. 
—Journal Royal Asiatic Society. 
an bs —Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Historischen Inhalts. 
—Zimmern, H. and Winckler, H. Die Keilinschriften und 
das Alte Testament. 
—Schrader, E. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. 
Vay —Kittel, R. Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 5th ed. 
a —Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the 
Old Testament. 
—Nowacks Handkommentar. 
—Orientalische Literaturzeitung. 
—Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement. 
—Records of the Past. 
ry —Society of Biblical Archaeology—Proceedings. 
Ais bake cone Books of the Old Testament. (Polychrome Edi- 
tion. 
T. —Stade, B. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 
—Vorderasiatische Abteiliung, Berlin Museum. 
M. —Vorderasiatische Gesellschaft Mitteilungen. 
: —The Westminster Commentaries. 
. D. O. G—Wissenschaftliche Ver6ffentlichungen der Deutscher 
Orient Gesellschaft. 
—Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie. 
. T. W  —Zeitschrift fuer die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 


Dw prt Pe 


ara 
“ed ener oY Rites eee sd chem Ty. 


~ 


Sass yunvOZ 


NN 


FOREWORD. 


The immature student of Biblical History is very often unable 
to find his bearings, because each book he picks up has a different 
account of the same events. As he begins to understand better the 
nature of the process whereby man is learning more and more about 
the remote past, he learns that new material which sheds light on 
the past is being continuously unearthed, and that as a result of this 
process each historian in retelling the old story must recast it in 
the light of new evidence. He appreciates the advantage that the 
younger historians who have access to material that was not 
previously available have over their predecessors, and he becomes 
increasingly suspicious of the older works. Eventually, he is apt 
to depend exclusively on the most recent works. It does not occur 
to him to investigate whether there were any new data discovered 
in the interval that elapsed since a previous book was written, which 
might account for the divergences in the various accounts. He 
takes that for granted, and consequently the more recent book is 
always accepted as the more authentic. 

In order that the immature student may be emancipated from 
this unscientific attitude, it is important for him to realize that our 
reconstruction of past events is often based on scanty evidence. 
When he learns to appreciate that scholars have to resort to hypo- 
theses to fill in lacunae or to reconcile differences and contradiction: 
in the sources, he will begin to understand that divergences are 
due, not always to differences in the sources that are available, but 
frequently to differences in the construction put on the same sources. 
There will then come a recognition of the part played by analysis, 
imagination and intuition in piecing together the fragmentary evi- 
dence in order to construct a complete whole. 

With that recognition there is bound to come a changed attitude 
on the part of the student. When he realizes that whenever differ- 
ences in the accounts are due to differences in interpretation of the 
sources or to differences in the assumptions that are made as to 
what probably happened, there will be no reason for him to assume 
that the older works are less reliable than the new. He may even 
perceive that the intuition of an older scholar may be more pene- 
trating than that of a younger. He will understand, too, that it is 


XI 


only when divergences between the older and more recent accounts 
are due to differences in the sources available at the times the two 
books were written that the older theories may be discarded in favor 
of the new. He will appreciate the necessity of investigating the 
reasons for all divergences that he notes. With that appreciation 
comes a scientific attitude. 

A detailed study of the problems involved in reconstructing the 
account of one Biblical event; an analysis of the difficulties which 
the available sources present’ and of the various hypotheses which 
have been devised to meet these difficulties, will serve, it is hoped, 
as an introduction to the study of Biblical Historiography, and will 
help the student to appreciate the difficulty in ascertaining definitely 
which of the many theories in the reconstruction referred to is more 
likely to be correct. 

I have chosen Sennacherib’s Campaign in Palestine as the topic 
for a study of this nature because there has been practically no 
new material found, of late, which throws light on Sennacherib’s 
invasion of Palestine. Consequently, all the differences in the 
reconstruction of the story of that event must be attributed to dif- 
ferences in interpretation, and the analysis of the bases for these 
differences will help to illustrate the different schools of thought 
engaged in the reconstruction of the Biblical story. 

The Assyrian version of Sennacherib’s campaign in Palestine is 
told in considerable detail on a number of cuneiform inscriptions, 
which are usually referred to as “Sennacherib’s Annals.” It is also 
contained in the inscriptions which were recorded on the bodies of 
the bulls that had been placed at the entrance to Sennacherib’s 
palace in Nineveh. These inscriptions correspond to one another 
so closely, that it is evident that they represent different editions 
of the same account. The Hebrew version of Sennacherib’s campaign 
or campaigns is given in II Kings and Isaiah, and in an abridged 
form in II Chronicles. We also possess in one of Herodotus’ narra- 
tives what is believed to be an Egyptian version of the same 
campaign. The story of this campaign is also told by Josephus. 
Josephus’ account is evidently a free rendering of the Biblical 
narrative. Josephus tries to smoothen out some of the difficulties 
presented by the Biblical text; moreover, he incorporates into his 
account elements taken from Herodotus. 


XII 


In addition to the accounts of Sennacherib’s campaign enumerated 
above, we have the following sources from which the story of 
Sennacherib’s campaign or campaigns is to be gleaned: a small 
cuneiform fragment indicating that Sennacherib waged a campaign 
in Arabia during the latter part of his reign; an abbreviated account 
of Sennacherib’s campaign in Palestine on one of Sennacherib’s 
display inscriptions; a clay impression of the seal of Shabaka, king 
of Ethiopia, found in Nineveh; and the contemporary allusions in 
the prophecies of Isaiah which were delivered during the crisis in 
Judah, caused by Sennacherib’s invasion or invasions of Palestine. 

In this source material are found an array of common elements, 
which to all intent may be accepted as facts, and a mass of dis- 
crepancies and contradictions; and there is evident a series of lacunae. 
voids which are to be made substantial only by theorizing, which 
at best is dangerous and beset with pitfalls. 

And so scholars who have attempted to reconstruct the story have 
produced these theories, or hypotheses: 

I. Sennacherib invaded Palestine only once. The invasion was 
successful from beginning to end. 

Il. Sennacherib invaded Palestine only once. During the 
first part of the campaign he was successful, but during the latter 
part his army was visited by a plague, and as a result he was 
compelled to return to Assyria with the remnant of his army, with- 
out accomplishing his purpose. 

II. Sennacherib invaded Palestine only once. He was successful 
in repressing the revolt in Phoenicia and Philistia, but because of 
disquieting rumors either of a powerful army advancing from Egypt 
and Ethiopia, or of unrest at home, he was compelled to end his 
campaign abruptly. Consequently Sennacherib allowed Hezekiah 
to buy his security through the payment of tribute. 

IV. There were two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine. The 
first campaign was successful from beginning to end. The second 
was a complete failure. 

V. There were two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine. The 
first was successful. The second ended abruptly, either because of 
a rumor of a powerful army led by Tirhakah, or of unsettled condi- 
tions in Assyria or Babylonia. 

VI. There were two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine. one 


XIII 


in 701. and the other during the latter part of Sennacherib’s reign. 
During the first campaign Sennacherib was successful in repressing 
the revolt in Phoenicia and Philistia, but because of disquieting 
rumors either of a powerful army advancing from Egypt and 
Ethiopia or of unrest at home, he was compelled to end his campaign 
abruptly. Consequently, in spite of the fact that Hezekiah was the 
leading spirit of the revolt, Sennacherib allowed him to buy his 
security through the payment of tribute. The second campaign was 
a complete failure. His army was visited by a plague and as a 
result, he was compelled to return to Assyria with the remnants of 
his army without accomplishing his purpose. 

These are not the story; they are reconstructions, hypotheses, 
theories; and in the succeeding chapters, the writer seeks to prove 
conclusively that none of the hypotheses is so strongly substantiated 
by the facts available in the sources, that it may claim greater 
credence than the others. 

Since the different conclusions which different writers have reached 

are not due to differences in the sources employed by them, but to 
different constructions put upon them, the writer proposes to make 
an analysis of these sources. He believes that such an analysis will 
indicate the impossibility, in our present state of knowledge, of 
coming to any definite conclusions in regards to the reconstruction 
of the events we are considering, and that all our conclusions must 
remain hypothetical in character until some new evidence will come 
to light, which will settle some moot questions once for all. 
_ is a negative effort of this kind fruitless? Not if it is a positive 
value to know that there is no way of escaping the tangle into which 
criticism of the available sources brings us without resorting to 
assumptions and backing them up by further assumptions. Nor, if 
it is a definite gain to learn that all possible theories of reconstruc- 
tion contain inherent weaknesses, and that that which determines 
for any given writer which hypothesis to accept is his subjective 
bias, rather than any definite basis for establishing any given view 
as a more faithful representation of what actually happened. 

This study will be justified if the analyses made in this study will 
bring an immature student to a better understanding of the problems 
underlying the reconstruction of Biblical History; to an appreciation 
of the various approaches to the questions that are possible and the 


XIV 


subjective element in writing history—if they will help him to 
recognize that in the absence of definite evidence, the intuitions of 
the older historians may approximate the truth as closely as those 
of their successors—if they will instill in him a sense of caution, 
so that he shall not accept any hypothesis too readily. 


I take pleasure in expressing my indebtedness to the late Prof. 
Frederick A. Vanderburgh for having stimulated my interest in 
cuneiform inscriptions. To Prof. Richard H. Gottheil I wish to 
express my sincerest thanks for the helpful and inspiring guidance 
which I have had the privilege of enjoying for almost ten years. 


I also wish to thank Mr. Jacob Golub and Mr. Solomon Bluhm 
for having read the proof sheets and for having given me the 
benefit of their constructive criticism; and in particular, I wish to 
acknowledge my gratitude to my brother-in-law, Harry M. Jaffe, 
for his ever-ready assistance and helpful suggestions. 


Leo L. Honor. 
Woe oldyal0;, 1926. 


XV 


uy 
7 NE ea o at 
B hAeny Whh ee, eae 1 By he ny ve ¥ 
ae bi iF 5% > a A'S a pare 
ss Tr caee ~ ri ca iy fadle ds. 
“¥ “oD Bs 2 - Ory } 
Lene pas ‘ % a% id 
oe v ‘2 yal \ Sabo ‘ae ¥ i : oan ty 
Dee ti iy ‘bt ae i: ee ae ae 
: ; i - - T ‘ ) cA ts 7 
Pg SRC RAB se pecs tae 
‘ -) iv rs i, 0 i s * ; ‘ 
Ae au Dect a4) bale, 
ti ALS ! ou, OF cara tm 
, y : Ma ie Wei + py " ne a 
2 f y \ Pp 
\ a 7 je a } . baa i iy 
y “3 ae ‘ : Mi pane ry qi ¥ 
al 4 4 | ] ¥ : ) ? 4 y %¢ . 
ich ' i ; 
| . : ob q ! ' a5 rn 4 T 8) sere 
‘ ; ) i He Re \ ih 
r t i u 7 ea, K: 
are , Baa 
ain: f : 1 yy ee a MURA. 
: r : ' Ae ae 
ui tif tay ‘ Waa i 
ri ‘8 ee i ri 4 
' i ‘ ay, et Bh j 
: fae? 
; : a‘. TEAS , 
i ower , 7 
t d f i : “a 
1 ‘ 4 ’ . ne Boar 
t 7 3 mi 1 ae 
: & i ; i. Pe Gs \ 
] ‘ Li <> ph nh td x oat A 
/ { na a i i nite vin 
‘ J ¥ Lf : : ‘i ¢ 
At, Gti nie Te ate te ma 
: iy ha me tae Niet j ait ak: i 
vu) fi { ty has "f ee } uk 
. i , 4 } ere Baie aA iit ree an Ve 
: 1 iN y j1-y 7 < # , if ; 
4 7 Pialed Lf i] ART i 
“ é rou i mek 
Od ate hit vA 
z a] L ’ 
s (hy! bs i H1t 
: ‘rary iv; we 
j é n pia a = a A 7 uh: 5 
> : { u Le ay 144 
a ™ 34 ; | ta re f ai : 
: ii a 
4 ; f ie - r \ i. aq ye 
; ’ + A i 
a . Tighe hii i }, y 
he i My , A Je td f iN nee, ih 
' yuh AUP 
J j The Ar da. i a Vy 4 
, t. Ute | ad Bi Py ial bs k : 
Ne a ‘ ia ru its wh 
: ' 4 : j yy ¥ MY LR ee 
x } 1 er ead Aes 
' "| \ \ Lies 7 aH i 
AY. ; . r ne ie Ao gues 
i < h bd Thea ; 21) 
P w 7 co Ea be) uy, 
- - 5 | we i 
? { } ., 7 i io a 
id A ; = an a ith, seis 
; Z ; iy a 7 Fihok fi 
‘ 42 a an iear) aLFs Pe ae 
iP Z y +f pul Is + Ay) 
. i <a ’ A elev yy avi 
‘ ty’ fi 5 Vy 
. ‘ { i ih i + ) it 1. ‘ 
~ i J 7 weue / 
j t ¢ Q “yy e On ten 
‘ ' i") ris i re “7 A 
j i) # ty a 7 , iby bs ye | ny ' 
se Ge Mania MPR HY 1) 0 
rah f eh qt eee 
ayy ohh as t, , ) N LY if Pie AL. a kk ! 
Ot cae j A ’ is te 
4 a J ae 
i Zo Vy: ; Seay d ay ray iv, ; 
ues \ ny? y Py r i is vq! Le ee 
: te i 4 ti viare) 
‘ if ¥ ny! . ‘ we A ye Ai waey 
- ‘ ¥ ie 
ao, * n ‘ ee ees » iy, le, +A bay 
hee. "f ay, hae wt 
. rie . ve is | 
: ti Bor ry ; i ‘4 Vas i 
‘ . ] r /! ee, ie el 
i Ld ; j 
G , - ¢ ri F Ls , ¥e 
j es o e up .* wit hig BS Wie cit. 
ry 4g J 17 ae ae 
| SO BU a ae SN 2 Prt 
A a eT bit Avie 
‘ ; M ar, an Pid) we bi he ns At: 
; ie “A Oe Wi ~ 4 c ni) ; ; iy 
| ‘ i oh ays tid , pe ; heat te , 
4 “3 j few i ft mie ; a a 
Psi Fl) eee 1a Ppa ye et ve tea % 
i , Gwe trea ; Ae 4 ae Mb ioe Ah we 
' ; veya Pe ata Ly kar fae aN ie ay 
4 aT 4 tS Soy i ae hs Wal as 1) he Be bi ’ 
' i é : ¥ Me Ta bry) Ps Waser en £ 
ar] qy ie fy fi f ) Me 
’ ‘e Oem ia? | , i +, ‘ 7k ot) ; Pa as 4 
ay ic RaW OF A 9 pier Pees. 
Ce SE Ny ie Meee Ae eae ty 
af wt J te : asi 7 
Pe Mire ve } ey vod “f uae ig at * be. av 
a ‘Ca u'y 4 GA or] | “er or: y ie 
hay oi y tae Pate rn he Bt nt fh sth, 
‘ ‘é “4 St ipa, a A - , : n oie , 4 Tuy / 
-, An at Me f, : +, a WT be! ah rie p a a: 
_ PES pa een Pe 
at. 5 De Pt ee te 
a 


7) 
7 
" 
’ 

a 


: 


AP] 
9 5 





CHAPTER I. Part I. 


THE ASSYRIAN SOURCES 
I. Tuer ANNALS OF SENNACHERIB 


The most important Assyrian source for the history of Senna- 
cherib’s reign is Sennacherib’s “Annals.” The analysis will not 
be clear, if the reader is not acquainted with the nature of these 
Annals. We usually conceive of annals as an historic record in 
which the important events of each year are noted. Sometimes 
annals represent a contemporary account, every important event 
being noted at the time of its occurrence. Sennacherib’s Annals 
are neither contemporary nor are they a record of important events 
arranged year by year. They are very largely inscriptions deposited 
in compartments specially built into the foundations of buildings 
in order to contain them. They are referred to as “annals” because 
the campaigns are described therein in the order of their succession. 

These annals had their origin in the Babylonian building in- 
scriptions, consequently each inscription contains an account of the 
king’s building enterprises,’ as well as his military achievements. 
The portion devoted to his building enterprises always forms an 
essential part of the inscription. Sometimes the first part dealing 
with the campaigns serves only as a sort of introduction to the 
latter part. 

These annals passed through a number of editions. A new edition 
was usually forthcoming sometime after the completion of a suc- 
cessful campaign. Again, a new stage in one of Sennacherib’s 
building undertakings might serve as an occasion for a new edition. 
There are a number of rescensions of each edition because it was 
customary to deposit a number of similar foundation inscriptions 
simultaneously, usually four, one in each corner. In spite of the 
fact that the earliest known edition” of the Annals was the one 
written latest, the discovery of the earlier editions has brought sur- 
prisingly little new information in regard to Sennacherib’s military 
campaigns, since as it seems, the scribes of each edition embodied 
with very little change the account found in the latest earlier edi- 
tion,’ and added an account of whatever campaigns had taken place 
after the writing of the previous edition. 


Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


lo 


The nature of Sennacherib’s Annals will be better understood if 
we discuss and analyze each edition. For the purposes of this 
study it is not perhaps necessary to include the first and second 
editions, since they were written prior to 701 and can have no 
bearing on the Palestine campaign—but, in order to understand 
properly the relations of the various editions one to the other, it is 


best to include them all. 


A. TuHE First EDITION. 


Cylinder to be found in the Assyrian Room of the British 
Museum—Table Case B, No. 13, Exhibit No. 113,203." 


This barrel shaped cylinder’ was found in a compartment in the 
wall, built for the express purpose of receiving the foundation de- 
posit. Similar to the other inscriptions of its kind, it is primarily a 
building inscription. As an introduction, it contains a very full ac- 
count of Sennacherib’s first campaign. This account is far more de- 
tailed than that which is found in the Bellino Cylinder, the second 
edition of Sennacherib’s Annals. The account of the first campaign 
in all the subsequent editions corresponds with the second and not 
with the first. This fact would not be surprising if the account 
of the subsequent campaigns would also be fuller in the earliest 
editions which contain them, but instead, we find surprisingly little 
difference between the earliest account of a campaign and the sub- 
sequent ones. 

The difference in detail in the first description of the first cam- 
paign and the first description of other campaigns can be accounted 
for by the assumption that the earliest edition containing the account 
of a campaign is not necessarily the primary description of that 
campaign. It is possible that of each campaign there was a de- 
tailed contemporary account,’ which furnished the annalist a basis 
for his description—that the scribe of 113,203 having but one 
campaign to describe, preferred to include this longer account, where- 
as the scribe of the second edition not only summarized this account, 
but also preferred to summarize the account of the second campaign, 
and the scribes of the subsequent editions followed a similar pro- 
cedure. Of course, this is purely an assumption, but in the study 
of such questions one has to base his theories on some hypothesis. 


A Critical Source Study 3 


B. Tue Seconp Epition—Datep 702 (Limu or NaBuLv’.) 


Usually referred to as the Bellino Cylinder. It forms 
part of the Kojunjik Collection of the British Museum, 
No. 1680. It is to be found in the Assyrian Room, Table 
Case E, No. 15, Exhibit No. 22,502." 


K 1680 is a barrel shaped cylinder written in the same year as 
113, 203, but differing from it in two respects. It contains an ac- 
count of the second campaign and the first campaign is described 
with considerably less detail. There are also many differences in 
the portion dealing with Sennacherib’s building operations. 

Whether there ever was a detailed account of the second cam- 
paign corresponding to the account of the first campaign in cylinder 
no. 113,203, or whether the account in the Bellino Cylinder is pri- 
mary, is hard to tell. What is important to note is that subsequent 
scribes have not summarized the Bellino account, but the story of 
the first two campaigns is found in all the later editions with no 
or only very slight modification. This cylinder was discovered by 
Rich in 1820 at the mound of Kojunjik. The first fac-simile was 
made by the consul Bellino, hence the name—Bellino Cylinder. 
This facsimile was faithfully copied and published by Grotenfeld.’ 


C. Tue Tuirp Epition—Datep 700 (Limu or METUNU). 


Usually referred to as the Rassam cylinder (or cylinders) .” 
There are four cylinders in the possession of the British 
Museum, registered as 80, 7-19, 1,° 80, 7-19, 2, 79, 7-8, 
302, and 81, 2-4, 42. They are exhibited in the Assyrian 
Room—Table Case E—Nos. 16-19. (Exhibit No. 22,500, 
22,501, 22,503, 22,504). Another duplicate cylinder is at 
present in the Museum at Constantinople.” 


All of the cylinders are barrel-shaped cylinders, written one year 
after the third campaign, containing an account of Sennacherib’s 
first three campaigns and of the progress Sennacherib had made 
in the building of his palace up to the time of writing.” They 
correspond to one another very closely.” These cylinders were 
found by Rassam during his second expedition in the foundation 
of the palace of Sennacherib in the mound of Kojunjik and were 
acquired by the British Museum in 1880. 


4. Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


The Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft in its excavations at Assur which 
it carried on for a number of years before the war, has discovered 
a number of historical inscriptions of Sennacherib.” Among them 
are three fragments which seem to be parts of a duplicate re- 
scension of the Rassam Cylinders. They are now in the Berlin 
Museum, registered as V.A. 7516, 7508, 7509. 

For the purpose of our study, this edition of the Annals is 
most important because it is the first which contains an account 
of Sennacherib’s campaign in Palestine. Unfortunately, because of 
its close correspondence to a much later edition (The Taylor Prism) 
which has been accepted as the standard edition of Sennacherib’s 
Annals, no one has found it necessary to publish the complete text. 
The latter part,” which differs from the later editions, has been 
published by T. A. Evetts, 1888. 

Since these cylinders are dated, it is possible to definitely estab- 
lish the date of the Palestine campaign. Since the latest known 
edition which does not contain an account of the Palestine cam- 
paign is that of the year 702, and the earliest known edition which 
does contain the account is of the year 700, it is certain that the 
campaign must have taken place prior to 700 and it is safe to 
assume that it took place after 702—consequently the date that is 
usually assigned for the campaign is 701. 


D. Tue FourtuH Known Epition—DatTep 697 Limu OF 
NABUDURUSUR. 


Fragments of a terra cotta prismoid—parts of eight columns 
—large portions of each column are missing. On columns 
V-VIII the lines are badly mutilated, either at one end or 
both ends. It belongs to the Kojunjik Collection of the 
Museum, and is registered as K. 16074, It is referred to by 
G. Smith as cylinder C. It contains an account of four 
campaigns." 
E. THE Firtra Known EpitIon. 


Small fragment of terra cotta prismoid—only parts of 
three columns remaining. It belongs to the Kojunjik Col- 
lection of the Museum and is registered as K1675. 


Prior to the discovery of 103,000,” the only known inscription in 


A Critical Source Study 5 


which there was an account of five campaigns was this small badly 
mutilated fragment.” Since the discovery of Cylinder 103,000 that 
prism has been accepted as the standard rescension of the fifth 
edition, and K1675 is regarded as a fragment of a duplicate rescen- 
sion. I am unable to believe that K1675 represents a different 
rescension of the same edition as 103,000, but am rather inclined 
to regard the two as independent editions. There is no reference 
in K1675 to the Cilician campaign and in that part devoted to 
building operations it resembles more closely the earlier editions 
than does 103,000, although there are a few lines which correspond 
very closely to 103,000. The date is very badly mutilated, but it 
may be assumed that the inscription was written in 695. If this 
analysis is correct, K1675 represents the fifth known edition of 
Sennacherib’s Annals and 103,000 represents the sixth. 


F. Tue Sixtu Epition—Datep 694—Limu or I[LUvITTIA. 

An eight-sided baked clay prism, known as Cylinder No. 
103,000, to be found in the Assyrian Room of the British 
Museum—Table Case E. No. 20. Sometimes referred to 
as the Sennacherib Prism, because it is the longest known 
inscription of Sennacherib. 


This prism is an inscription in eight columns describing Senna- 
cherib’s principal achievements up to the summer of 694, as well 
as the rebuilding and fortifications of the city of Nineveh. The 
importance of this inscription consists in the fact that it contains 
an account of two campaigns,” which were omitted from the last 
known edition (the so-called Taylor Cylinder, which was the earliest 
found and, because it represents a later edition than all the other 
known editions, is usually accepted as the standard edition) .” 
In all likelihood, this omission is due to the fact that Sennacherib 
himself took no active part in these campaigns.” 

The place where the prism was discovered is not known, but 
from the context it is surmised that it must have been buried within 
the city wall behind one of the colossal bulls stationed at the 
entrance of one of the gates. It was probably written to com- 
memorate the completion of the city wall.” This edition contains 
an amplification of the building achievements of Sennacherib des- 
cribed in the earlier editions, as well as an elaborately detailed 


6 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


description of the progress achieved during the six years that elapsed 


since the writing of the third edition. 





G. Tue Latest Known EpitioN—Datep 691°—Limu oF 
BELLIMURANNI. 

A six-sided prism in the possession of the British Museum, 

registered as 50, 10-3, 1 (in accordance with the date of 

acquisition). It is to be found in the Assyrian Room, 


Table Case E, No. 21, Exhibit No. 91,032. 


It is usually referred to as the Taylor Cylinder, or more correctly, 
Prism. This inscription was acquired by the British Museum in 
1855. This prism is an inscription in six columns containing an 
account of eight campaigns of Sennacherib, conducted during the 


first part of his reign (705-694). Since the account in Senna- 
cherib’s Annals of the first five campaigns had by this time become 


stereotyped and therefore incorporated in this edition in almost the 
identical” form that it appears in the earlier, the earlier editions have 
been often referred to by scholars as duplicates” of this edition, 
and this edition is considered to be the standard source for the 
history of Sennacherib’s reign. There are two reasons for this 
attitude—in the first place, since it is the latest known edition of 
Sennacherib’s Annals, it is the most complete, and in the second 
place, it was the earliest to be discovered. 

It is not known exactly when, where and how it was discovered ;” 
it came into the possession of Col. Taylor as early as 1830 and 
it was published by Rawlinson in his Inscriptions of Western Asia 
v. 1 plates 37-42. 

Because of the widespread interest” in the Taylor Prism, there 
have been numerous transliterations and translations of the entire 
text. There have also been many transliterations, translations and 
discussions of the part that concerns us most, that dealing with the 
Palestine campaign.” 


Il. Disptay INSCRIPTIONS 


In addition to the Annals in which Sennacherib’s military 
achievements have been recorded, there is a different type of in- 
scriptions usually referred to as Display inscriptions. The eccasion 


A Critical Source Study 7 


for the display inscriptions was usually the completion of some 
architectural work. The king was wont to make use of the oppor- 
tunity to give an account of his achievements on the field of battle. 
These display inscriptions are of two kinds. In the first place, 
there are a number of inscriptions cut into the rock of a high con- 
spicuous mountain for the purpose of commemorating an important 
achievement. Such inscriptions are usually accompanied by a series 
of sculptures” representing graphically the story of the inscription. 
The place chosen for inscriptions of this nature is one calculated 
to attract attention far and wide.” Sometimes when a display 
inscription of this nature is set up in the heart of the conquered 
territory, in order to avoid the possibility of the inscription being 
defaced by hostile natives who would naturally be incensed by such 
a conspicuous story of their defeat, a spot would be chosen which 
would be very inaccessible” to the average individual. The most 
important display inscriptions of this kind are the Bavian” and the 
Hasanah inscriptions.” Neither of these contains any material 
bearing on Sennacherib’s campaign in Palestine. 

In the second place, we have a number of palace and temple 
inscriptions.~ These inscriptions are sometimes found on the marble 
portions of the palace, on other parts of the building, on the bodies 
of the large sculptured bulls and lions, and on bas-reliefs to explain 
the engraving. There are also sometimes found tablets, which were 
probably suspended on the wall in a conspicuous place. Most of 
these inscriptions are very brief, confined to a few lines, giving the 
name of the king, a number of epithets, and a statement of some 
building achievement, such as the restoration of Nineveh to her 
ancient splendor, or the building of the magnificent palace. There 
are a number of inscriptions, however, which are much longer. Of 
these longer inscriptions, we are interested in those which include 
a summary of the description of the Palestine campaign. On the 
whole, these longer display inscriptions correspond in many respects 
to the Annals. The chief differences between the Annals and the 
corresponding display inscriptions are in the first place, that the 
display inscriptions are briefer, and are often, very evidently, a 
summary of the Annals or else of the original draft from which the 
Annals were written. Secondly, the display inscriptions usually 
contain certain characteristic expressions; in the third place, the 


8 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


opening sentences are usually different. The display inscriptions 


referred to above are as follows: 


A. Tue Nepi-Yunus INSCRIPTION :” 


A stone tablet now in the possession of the Museum at 
Constantinople. It is usually referred to as the Memorial 


Slab. 


This inscription is an abridgment of the Annals, and we cannot 
expect to find in it any new” light on the subject of our investigation. 
An abridgment of this kind is important, however, as a source, be- 
cause it indicates the writer’s conception of the relative importance 
of the various elements of the longer account. In the description 
of the third campaign, the account is limited to Sidon and Judah, 
and no mention is made of the Philistine cities. In accordance 
with one interpretation of the Annals, Sennacherib’s chief interest 
was in the maritime plain, and the expedition to Judah was only in- 
cidenta!l to his chief purpose. The manner in which the campaign 
is summarized in this inscription tends to refute this interpretation. 
It can be argued, however, that the reason the summary is limited to 
Sidon and Judah is because of their relative importance,” and not 
because the object of the campaign was to conquer these countries. 


B. Tue Buty INSCRIPTIONS:” 


The Bulls were discovered by Layard during his excava- 
tion at Kojunjik in 1845. They are now to be found at the 
entrances B and C to chamber B of the British Museum. 
Slabs taken from the Bulls containing in cuneiform inscrip- 
tions the story of Sennacherib’s campaign in Palestine are 


to be found on the Eastern side of the Assyrian transept 
No. 817, 819, 821 and 823. 


The Bull inscriptions were probably made at the time of the com- 
pletion of the palace at Kojunjik, and, therefore, in all likelihood 
about the same time that prism 103,000 was inscribed. Similarly 
to prism 103,000, Bulls one and two describe only the first five of 
the eight campaigns referred to in the Taylor Prism. Bull III con- 
tains a brief account of the sixth campaign, and Bull IV an elabo- 
rate account of the sixth campaign.” The text of the Bull inscrip- 


A Critical Source Study 7 


tions corresponds very largely to the text of the Annals. George 
Smith, in his History of Sennacherib, chooses as his basic text for 
the third expedition column II, line 34—column III, line 41 of the 
Taylor Prism, with which he claims Cylinder B as well as Bull 1V 
are in substantial agreement. He notes the variants in parenthetical 
comments. Bezold includes the Bull inscriptions together with the 
various editions of the Annals in his studies of the variants’ from 
the Taylor Prism, which he accepts as the standard text. 


C. Bas-RELIEFs. 

The Assyrian statuary, giving us the remarkable bas-reliefs which 
depict so graphically some of the difficulties which Sennacherib’s 
huge building enterprises” involved, and the manner in which they 
were surmounted, is of immense interest to the student of Ancient 
Civilization. However, since they can not possibly throw any light 
on our problem, they will not be discussed here. 

Of the many bas-reliefs” depicting a battle in process, or a siege 
and capture of a city, the ones that concern us most are the following: 


1. Tuat DEPICTING THE SIEGE oF LacuisH.™ 
A series of sculptures to be found in the British Museum 
(Assyrian Saloon, Sculptures 21-32). 


This series of sculptured slabs describes the siege, assault and 
capture of the city of Lachish. On one of these slabs Sennacherib 
is depicted sitting on his throne, surrounded by his officers, receiving 
homage from representatives of the conquered peoples, some of 
whom are depicted kneeling, others standing. Underneath the whole 
there is an inscription.” 

Many of the hypotheses, which have been suggested in connection 
with our problem, center around this bas-relief. In view of the 
fact, that the Biblical account mentions Lachish” as the place where 
Sennacherib had established his headquarters at the time that Heze- 
kiah sent his tribute, this bas-relief has been assigned a double value. 
In the first place, it has been taken as a confirmation of the Biblical 
account, and in the second, it is looked upon as a means of determin- 
ing at which stage of Sennacherib’s campaign the tribute was paid by 
Hezekiah. Some scholars, however, have argued that if the siege of 
Lachish was considered important enough to warrant the fashioning 
of a series of sculptures, it would have certainly been deemed im- 


10 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


portant enough to have been mentioned in the Annals.” Since there 
is no mention of Lachish in any of the inscriptions, the siege of 
Lachish, in accordance with this view, could not have taken place 
during any of the campaigns described in the Annals. Upon the 
basis of this interpretation, the bas-relief. has been used as a support 
for the hypothesis, that during the latter part of Sennacherib’s reign, 
there was a second campaign in Palestine. One of the difficulties 
with this interpretation is the reference to Lachish in the Biblical 
account. There are two ways of meeting this difficulty: (1) to as- 
sume that the reference in the Bible is the gloss of a later editor; 
(2) to assume that there were two campaigns in Palestine and that 
Lachish was used as the Assyrian headquarters both times. In the 
first campaign the capture of Lachish may have been easily accom- 
plished; consequently, the scribe felt no need to mention the place 
by name when enumerating the cities captured during the course of 
the campaign. In the second campaign, Lachish may have resisted 
the Assyrian invasion and been captured only after a long siege; 
therefore because of the many difficulties encountered, the Assyrians 
may have regarded the capture of the city as an important event 
and perpetuated the memory of it by a series of sculptures.” 


2. THaT DEPICTING THE SIEGE OF JERUSALEM (?) 

Part of a series of sculptures which originally lined the 
side of an Assyrian Galley, in the possession of the British 
Museum. Slabs 20-26 are to be found in an Assyrian 
Galley placed in the Kojunjik Gallery. 


This series represents the assault of a city on a high dome-shaped 
hill. The name of the city was inscribed, but unfortunately the 
first part of the name is lost; the second part must have been 
“alammu.” It has therefore been suggested that the entire name may 
have been Ursalammu™ (Jerusalem). This conjecture tends to be 
confirmed by the fact that the prisoners are depicted with Jewish 
features. It is not possible, however, to draw any inferences from 
a study of physiognomic characteristics, because there is very little 
distinction in features between the Hebrew and other Semitic peoples. 
There has naturally been very much interest displayed in these 
slabs—but they do not throw any light upon the problem we are 
investigating.” 


A Critical Source Study 1] 


III. Inscriptions LATER THAN THE TAYLOR PRISM. 


In discussing the Annals, it has been pointed out that the latest 
known edition was inscribed in 691,” and that we, therefore, have 
no information as to what happened during the latter part of Sen- 
nacherib’s reign. The lack of source material may be explained in 
accordance with any of the following hypotheses: 


1. That there were later editions of the Annals, but that 
they have not been preserved. They may have been placed in 
that part of the palace which has been completely destroyed.” 
Or else, they may have been removed and destroyed by natives 
before the natives discovered how intensely interested Euro- 
peans are in these inscriptions. If the assumption that there 
were later editions than the Taylor Prism is correct, then is it 
not possible to hope that they still exist, but thus far they have 
not been discovered ?™ 


2. That there were no campaigns later than the eighth 
campaign—and therefore no deeds worthy of being recorded. 


3. That the campaigns in the latter part of the reign were 
not successful and it was deemed best to pass over them in 


silence. 


It has long been known that hypothesis 2 cannot be correct, for 
in the Annals of Essarhadon™ a reference is made to the capture of 
an Arabic fortress (Adamu) by his father Sennacherib. From this 
it can be inferred that there must have been an Arabian campaign. 
Hitherto there has been no reference to such a campaign in any of 
the known inscriptions of Sennacherib. Recently, there has come 
into possession of the Berlin Museum a small fragment” of a Sen- 
nacherib inscription, which evidently must have described the Arabic 
campaign in considerable detail. This fragment is very important, 
because it confirms the hypothesis of an Arabic campaign and makes 
it possible to believe that there may have existed many other in- 
scriptions, in which the events of the last ten years” of Sennacherib’s 
reign are as fully recorded as the events of the first fourteen. 


12 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


IV. A Cxay IMPRESSION OF A ROYAL SEAL. 


Since 1881, there has been in the possession of the British Museum 
a clay seal impression” bearing the name and titles of Shabaka, the 
founder of the twenty-fifth dynasty. Since this impression was found 
in Nineveh, it indicates relations between Egypt and Assyria, either 
during the reign of Sargon or Sennacherib. Prof. Olmstead uses 
this impression as a basis for a hypothesis, that after the campaign 
of 701, a treaty of peace was drawn up between Shabaka and Sen- 
nacherib.” In support of this hypothesis, he mentions the fact that 
in a business document of Sennacherib’s reign there is mentioned a 
son-in-law of the king, who bears the Egyptian name “Shushanku.” 
This hypothesis may be correct, but it is based on very scanty evi- 
dence. It is not likely, however, that any new evidence will be 
forthcoming, unless Prof. Olmstead’s conjecture, that the treaty was 
written on papyrus and therefore perished, is not correct. 


CHAPTER I. Parr II. 


CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ACCOUNT OF SENNACHERIB’ 
CAMPAIGN FOUND IN THE ASSYRIAN ANNALS. 


Of all the sources mentioned above, we are naturally most con- 
cerned with the Rassam Cylinders, or rather that part of the cylin- 
ders which deals with the third campaign, because of its direct bear- 
ing on our problem. A comparison of the description of this cam- 
paign in the Rassam cylinders with the description found in Hebrew 
Scriptures (II K xvi 13-x1x 37, Is. xxxvi and xxxvil) indicates that 
there is a very close correspondence between the Assyrian account 
and the first part of the Hebrew (II K xvi 13-16), and a seemingly 
irreconcilable difference between the Assyrian account and the second 
part of the Hebrew (II K xvnr 17ff. Is. xxxvi 2ff.). In accordance 
with the former, Sennacherib’s invasion was successful from _be- 
ginning to end; in accordance with the latter, his campaign ended 
in total failure. There are three possible ways of harmonizing the 
Assyrian account with the Hebrew. 

Hypothesis I. It is possible to argue, that in as much as there is 
substantial agreement between II K xvi 13-16 and the account in the 
Assyrian Annals, and since whatever disagreement exists between the 
Assyrian account and II K xvii 17ff. also exists between the two 
parts of the Hebrew account (II K xvin 13-16 and If K xvim 17— 
x1x 37 respectively), that If K xvim 13-16 and the account in the 
Assyrian annals represent authentic sources which confirm one 
another, and that If K xvin 17ff. represents a late legendary, un- 
historical account. Accordingly, the story of Sennacherib’s campaign 
can be reconstructed as follows: 

While Sennacherib was busy in the East, suppressing the 
revolt in Babylonia, Egypt was stimulating the various Pales- 
tinian states to revolt. Hezekiah, King of Judah, was probably 
the first to respond. He was joined by Luli, King of Sidon. 
In the Philistine cities there was a division of opinion. The 
King of Ashkelon, Rukibtu, preferred to remain loyal to As- 
syria; but his policy did not meet with popular approval, and 
as a result he was deposed and put to death, and Sidka, the 
leader of the anti-Assyrian party, was placed on the throne 
in his stead.” In Ekron, too, there was a bitter struggle be- 


14, 


Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


tween the anti-Assyrian and pro-Assyrian party. When the 
former won, Padi, the King of Ekron, who had been loyal to 
Assyria, was deposed, cast into chains and sent to Hezekiah for 
safe keeping. Ashdod and Gaza, however, decided to remain 
loyal to Assyria. The Palestinian rebels tried to persuade 
some of the petty kingdoms in the north — Shamsimuruna, 
Arvad, Byblos—as well as the remaining Palestinian kingdoms, 
Ammon, Moab, and Edom” to join them, but they did not 
succeed. These states decided to maintain a state of neutrality” 
until they would see the outcome of events. 

Sennacherib decided to quell the rebellion in the Maritime 
Plain first, and then to quell the rebellion in the interior. This 
move on the part of Sennacherib was unexpected.” The king 
of Sidon abandoned his capital without a struggle. All the 
Phoenician subsidiary cities, the two Sidons, Bethzitti, Sarepta, 
Mahalliba, Ushu, and Akzib were captured one after the other. 
Ithobaal, known for his loyalty to Assyria, was appointed king 
of Sidon. Ithobaal agreed to pay a heavy tribute yearly. 

The states, which had been wavering and had hitherto not 
decided whether to join the revolt, or remain loyal, impressed 
by Sennacherib’s easy victory in Phoenicia, hastened to ex- 
press their loyalty to Sennacherib and to bring rich presents. 
Ekron, Ashkelon, and Judah, still relying upon Egypt for as- 
sistance, continued to hold out against Assyria. 

Sennacherib continued along the maritime coast—the city 
of Ashkelon™ was captured before the expected Egyptian as- 
sistance arrived. The anti-Assyrian king Sidka was deposed; 
he, his family and the gods of the city were deported to Assyria. 
Sharruludaru, the son of their former king, was placed on the 
throne. The subsidiary cities Beth Dagon, Joppa, and Bene- 
barka™ were captured. 

Some time before the siege of Ekron was begun, there arrived 
in Palestine the Egyptian and Ethiopian troops, which had been 
expected by the Palestinian allies for a long time. They had 
not come in time to save Ashkelon, but they were in time to 
attempt to save Ekron. The two armies met at Eltekeh. The 
Assyrians were victorious, the city of Eltekeh and the city of 
Timnath, which was nearby, were captured, and the siege of 


A Critical Source Study 15 


Ekron was resumed, and continued until the city fell. Terrible 
punishment was meted out to the leaders, as well as to the 
rank and file of the anti-Assyrian party. The entire maritime 
coast was now in the possession of Assyria, and the only Pales- 
tinian state that still remained hostile to Sennacherib was 
Judah.” 

Sennacherib decided to postpone the siege of Jerusalem until 

the entire country of Judah would be devastated.” The first 

Judean city to fall in the hands of Sennacherib was the city of 
Lachish. There he established his headquarters. From La- 
chish he was able to watch the Egyptian frontier,” and at the 
same time, to send out his bands to various parts of Judah. 
Forty-six Judean cities and many villages were captured, and 
an extremely large number of prisoners were taken. While 
Sennacherib was engaged in devastating Judah, he did not at- 
tempt to besiege Jerusalem, but he did blockade the city, so 
that no one could go in or out. 

When the news of what was happening to his country reached 
Hezekiah, he became frightened and realized the futility of 
further resistance. Hezekiah sent ambassadors to Lachish to 
negotiate a peace with Sennacherib, who imposed an extremely 
heavy tribute on Hezekiah, and demanded the release of Padi.” 
Hezekiah accepted these terms, although he had to strip the 
Temple in order to comply with Sennacherib’s demands. Padi 
was reappointed king of Ekron, and the greater part of the land 
of Judah was divided amongst three loyal pro-Assyrian Philis- 
tine kings—Padi of Ekron, Mitinti of Ashdod, and Sillibel of 
Gaza. All that was left to Hezekiah of his former kingdom 
was his capital.” 


Sennacherib had completely subdued the rebellion. He had 
accomplished his purpose; consequently, he returned to Assyria 
to celebrate his victories. 


Hypothesis II. It is possible to argue that a legend of the nature 
of If K xix 35 could not have evolved without a basis in historic 
fact. An insignificant victory might have been embellished through 
legend and have eventually been recorded in history as a magnifi- 
cent victory; but an overwhelming defeat, such as implied in the 


16 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


Assyrian description of Hezekiah’s humiliation, could not have been 
converted into the story of a complete destruction of the Assyrian 
army. Consequently, it may be assumed that there were two stages 
to Sennacherib’s campaign; that during the first (described by the 
Assyrian annals, as well as by If K xvi 13-16) Sennacherib met 
with a number of successes, and that during the latter (described 
by II K xvi 17—x1x 36) his army met with an overwhelming dis- 
aster. If this assumption is correct, why are the Assyrian annals 
silent concerning the second part of the campaign? To this ques- 
tion there is only one natural answer: viz., that the Assyrian annalist 
deliberately left out of his account that part of the story, because he 
did not wish to perpetuate the memory of an unsuccessful enterprise. 
Moreover, since the account in the Assyrian annals seems to be com- 
plete, the Assyrian annalist, in accordance with this view, must be 
suspected of having consciously described the temporary successes, 
which occurred during the early stages of the campaign, in such a 
way as to give the impression that he had told the whole story. 

Those who advocate this hypothesis, maintain that the annals 
themselves furnish evidence in its favor. They believe that the 
chronological sequence has been tamperd with, that important omis- 
sions have been made, and other steps taken to cover up the ultimate 
failure of Sennacherib. A careful reading of the Assyrian account 
brings a number of questions to the mind of the reader. Upon 
the answer one gives to these questions depends whether or not he 
can accept the hypothesis, that the Assyrian annalist confined his at- 
tention to only one part of the campaign, and that he intentionally 
described that part in such a way as to give the impression that he 
had described the entire campaign. 


I. Why did not Sennacherib take advantage of his victory at Eltekeh 
and invade Egypt? 


If Sennacherib’s objective was Egypt,” his return to Assyria with- 
out having invaded Egypt can be interpreted in only one way, viz., 
that something happened to prevent Sennacherib from doing so. 
Moreover, even if we assume that Sennacherib’s purpose was to 
pacify Palestine, and that at the time he left Assyria he had not 
intended to invade Egypt, the question is still pertinent; for any 
Assyrian monarch who had defeated a powerful” Egyptian army, 


A Critical Source Study Li 


would have immediately advanced into Egypt, unless there was a 
valid reason for his not doing so. 

In view of the fact that Herodotus refers to a destruction of the 
Assyrian army at Pelusium,” there is a simple way of meeting the 
difficulty suggested by the above question—by assuming that Sen- 
nacherib did invade Egypt, but that his invasion met with failure. 
If we accept this assumption, then we must grant the further assump- 
tion, that the Assyrian scribe omitted all reference to this invasion 
of Egypt, in order to make it appear that Sennacherib’s third cam- 
paign was a brilliant success (and to leave it to the discerning reader 
to wonder why Sennacherib did not follow up his victory at Eltekeh). 

But it is not necessary to accept the above answer to the question 
presented. We may assume that Sennacherib did not invade Egypt. 
A number of explanations can be given for his failure to do so. 
We can assume with Schrader,” that the victory at Eltekeh was a 
very costly one; that although the Egyptian army was defeated and 
Sennacherib was enabled to continue his siege of Ekron, nevertheless, 
his army was no longer in fit condition to warrant so tremendous 
an undertaking as an attempt to conquer Egypt. Or, we can assume 
that Sennacherib did not follow up his victory at Eltekeh, because 
of unfavorable conditions at home, which compelled him to end his 
campaign abruptly.” It is also possible to assume that the victory 
at Eltekeh was an insignificant victory, i.e., that instead of having 
defeated a large and powerful army, Sennacherib had defeated a 
small contingent of troops which Egypt reluctantly sent into Pales- 
tine, in order to save her reputation.” Or, we may presume that the 
victory at Eltekeh, in spite of the capture of the commanders of the 
chariots and the sons of the King of Egypt, was not altogether a 
decisive victory.” In accordance with any one of the assumptions, 
it is clear why Sennacherib thought it wise not to invade Egypt at 
that time. Each of these assumptions implies that the Assyrian 
annalist was guilty of exaggeration or of misrepresentation—that 
he allowed himself a certain amount of liberty with the facts, in 
order to put the Assyrians in a more favorable light. 

Those who are not ready to admit that there is any reason to 
question the authenticity of the Assyrian Annals, can give no answer 
to the problem suggested in the above question, excepting an as- 
sertion of faith that if Sennacherib did not follow up his victory at 


18 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


Eltekeh, it must have been because he did not wish to and not be- 
cause he was prevented from doing so. Why he should not have 
wished to, naturally remains an unsolved problem.” 


Il. Why was Hezekiah treated so leniently” in spite of the fact 
that Hezekiah was the leading” spirit in the revolt? Why was Jeru- 
salem only blockaded and not besieged, captured and destroyed?” 

For those who believe that Sennacherib’s campaign ended abruptly, 
and that he was prevented from bringing his project to a successful 
conclusion, either because of unfavorable reports from the East, or 
because of the advance of a powerful Egyptian army, this question 
presents no difficulties, and the answer is simple. Those who be- 
lieve that I] K xvitt 17if. represenis later stages of the campaign 
than the one described in the Assyrian annals, can answer these 
questions by the supposition that Sennacherib did not stop to be- 
siege Jerusalem because his objective was Egypt; that he had no 
time to make the attempt to capture so well protected” a fortress as 
Jerusalem, and was glad to take advantage of Hezekiah’s offer to 
pay tribute. Sennacherib’s change of mind and sudden demand for 
the surrender of Jerusalem must, accordingly, be attributed to his 
having heard of an advancing Egyptian army” and of his recognition 
that he could not be safe so long as there was a powerful hostile 
fortress in his rear. If this army is not the army which he defeated 
at Eltekeh, then it must be assumed that the disaster described in 
II K x1rx 35 took place while Sennacherib was preparing to meet this 
army. Qn the other hand, if the army referred to is the army de- 
feated at Eltekeh,~ then the failure of Sennacherib to wreak ven- 
geance on Hezekiah, with whom he would now be doubly wroth 
because he had resisted his demand for the surrender of Jerusalem, 
is all the more surprising. It becomes necessary to assume again 
that Sennacherib was in a hurry to get to Egypt and did not wish 
to take the time that would be necessary, in order to capture a 
fortress as strong as Jerusalem, but preferred to follow up his vic- 
tory at Eltekeh by invading Egypt immediately and to defer the 
punishment of Jerusalem until his return. According to this hy- 
pothesis, this intention was never carried out, because it is assumed 
that the Egyptian invasion had been a very disastrous one for Sen- 
nacherib, and that Sennacherib barely managed to get back to his 


A Critical Source Study 19 


capital with a small remnant of his army.™ , 

For those who disagree with the above hypothesis, and who try 
to reconstruct the story of the campaign of 701 in accordance with 
the annals and IIK xvi 13-16 only, the above question is a very 
dificult one. If it is to be assumed that Hezekiah was allowed to 
remain on the throne, because Sennacherib agreed to leave him there, 
and not because Sennacherib was compelled to do so, then it becomes 
necessary to conclude that Hezekiah surrendered sufficiently early 
for Sennacherib to have consented to allow Hezekiah to buy his 
freedom. Since the Assyrian Annals refer to a blockade of Jerusalem. 
we must infer that Hezekiah’s offer to pay tribute came at an ad- 
vanced stage of the campaign. Prof. Fullerton” believes that al- 
though Hezekiah yielded after the city had been blockaded, Hezekiah 
was treated with clemency because Sennacherib appreciated Heze- 
kiah’s not resisting to the bitter end and his having saved him the 
need of besieging the city. He feels that Sennacherib could afford 
to be satisfied with payment of tribute, in view of the fact that he 
had already captured and plundered all the Judean cities and had 
divided the greater part of Hezekiah’s Kingdoms amongst his loyal 
vassals,” Mitinti of Ashdod, Padi of Ekron and Sillibel of Gaza, 
and had humiliated Hezekiah to the extent of forcing him to sur- 
render his royal harem.” This assumption seems to be possible, 
only if we assume that Jerusalem was so well protected that Sen- 
nacherib recognized that it would be an extremely difficult task for 
him to capture the city, and was consequently very glad that Hezekiah 
was ready to accept whatever conditions he would impose, and there- 
by save him considerable effort.” 


Ill. Why is Tyre not mentioned in the Assyrian account of Sen- 
nacherib’s campaign in Palestine? 


Is it possible that Tyre played no part in the revolt of the Pales- 
tinian states; that she neither participated in the revolt nor joined 
the neutral states who brought presents to Sennacherib as an ex- 
pression of loyalty to Assyria? If this question is answered in the 
negative, how can the Assyrian silence concerning Tyre be accounted 
for? For those scholars who believe that the account in the As- 
syrian annals is not an accurate representation of the truth, but 
rather a psychological marshalling of facts, in order that it may 


20 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


appear that the campaign was wholly successful, when, as a matter 
of fact, it was not, the simplest answer to this question would be 


9 


to presume that Sennacherib besieged Tyre,” and failed to capture 
the island fortress, and that the annalist, not wishing to resort to 
falsehood, and at the same time not wishing to admit that Sennache- 
rib had failed in something that he had set out to do, thought it best 
to omit all reference to Tyre in his account. 

Some scholars believe that this supposed siege of Tyre may have 
been the subject of Menander’s tale quoted by Josephus (Antiquities 
ix, xtv 2).” The name used in the Greek text is Selampsas, which 
is evidently a corruption.” Since from what we know of Shal- 
maneser’s reign, it is not likely that Phoenicia was overrun, and 
that a five year siege of Tyre was undertaken during his reign;” and 
since it is very tempting to identify Eloulaios, King of Tyre, referred 
to by Menander, with Luli, King of Sidon, mentioned in Sennacherib’s 
annals, these scholars favor the assumption that Selampsas is a 
corruption of Sennacheribos rather than Salmanasares. 

The first question that the above assumptions bring to mind is, 
why is Eloulaios referred to as King of Tyre, and Luli as King of 
Sidon? If Eiselin’s” conjecture, that during the reign of Tiglath- 
Pilether IV," Sidon was a vassal city to Tyre, and that the status was 
not changed during the reigns of Shalmaneser V and Sargon is true, 
then we may surmise that Luli was in reality king of Tyre, and king 
of Sidon only in the sense, that as king of Tyre he was also king of 
all its possessions, and of its vassal states. If our premise is cor- 
rect, then the Assyrian designation of Luli as King of Sidon can be 
interpreted in only one way—viz., that there was a studied effort on 
the part of the annalist to avoid mentioning the name of Tyre. 
The implications of such an effort is clear. The above surmise 
seems to be supported by the fact that amongst those who brought 
presents to Sennacherib, there is included Tuba’lu, King of Sidon. 
It seems strange that Sennacherib should include a king whom he 
himself had placed on the throne, amongst those who were impressed 
by his victories, and as a result hastened to pay him homage. If 
Luli was King of Sidon, and Tuba’lu a rival claimant to the throne, 
Tuba’lu could not have been regarded as King of Sidon, prior to 
his having been placed on the throne by Sennacherib. On the other 
hand, if Tuba’lu was King of Sidon, and a vassal to Luli, King of 


A Critical Source Study 2] 


Tyre, it would have been natural for him to have hurried to mani- 
fest his loyalty to Assyria as soon as Luli fled from his capital (or 
perhaps more correctly, from old Tyre on the mainland), with the 
expectation that the Assyrian monarch would help him shake off 
the hateful yoke of Tyre.” 

A far more serious difficulty with the hypothesis, that Menander is 
describing an episode of the campaign of 701, is the fact that Me- 
nander refers to a peace which the Assyrian king made with the 
Phoenicians, and ascribes the subsequent events to a second expedi- 
tion. This does not fit in with the known events of Sennacherib’s 
reign. Sennacherib could not have had such dealings with the 
Phoenicians prior to 701. Moreover, we know that the campaign 
of Sennacherib in 701 could not have lasted more than one season,” 
and there is therefore no room for the notion of a five year siege. 
In regard to the former difliculty, it is possible to assume that Me- 
nander might have mistaken the expeditions of two kings for those 
of one.” As for the second difficulty, since Menander’s story refers 
to the fact that the Assyrian monareh was supplied with men and 
boats by the Phoenician cities, it is possible to suppose that the 
siege was continued for five years, not by the Assyrians themselves, 
but by the Phoenicians. It would have been very natural for the 
King of Sidon, anxious to eliminate Sidon’s rival and former mis- 
tress, to continue the siege of Tyre after the departure of the 
Assyrians, in behalf of his Assyrian overlord.” 


The recent tendency, however, is to assume that the description 
of Menander, quoted by Josephus, does not refer to anything that 
happened in the reign of Sennacherib, but to ascribe it to one of the 
later kings, Essarhadon or Ashurbanipal.” Both Essarhadon and 
Ashurbanipal refer in their inscriptions to a siege of Tyre, in which 
they cut off the Tyrian food and water supply.” The similarity 
to the quotation in Josephus tempts one to identify either Essar- 
hadon’s or Ashurbanipal’s siege of Tyre with the event described in 
Josephus’ quotation of Menander, in spite of the fact that both 
Essarhadon and Ashurbanipal refer to the king of Tyre as Ba/al. 
On the other hand, the fact that both Essarhadon and Ashurbanipal 
refer to an attempt to force the Tyrians to surrender by cutting off 
their water supply, suggests the possibility that such a plan might 


22 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


~_—— 


have been resorted to by an earlier Assyrian king, who wished to 
reduce the impregnable island fortress. 

Before taking up the next question, it is important to point out 
that even if we grant that the descripion of Menander does not refer 
to an episode in the campaign of 701, it does not necessarily imply 
that Sennacherib, in the course of his third campaign, did not make 
an unsuccessful attempt to capture Tyre; or that there was not 
something which the annalist did not wish to narrate, and, as a result 
of which he decided not to make any mention of Tyre in his account. 


IV. Js the chronological sequence of the Assyrian Annals cor- 
rect? Was Ashkelon captured before Ekron in spite of the fact 
that Ashkelon is further south? When did Hezekiah pay his tribute, 
before or after the battle of Eltekeh?" If the chronological se- 
guence is not correct, why did the Assyrian scribe change it? Was 
the change accidental or deliberate? 


For those who believe that the chronological sequence of events 
has been accurately portrayed by the Assyrian scribe, the capture of 
Ashkelon before Ekron can be explained by assuming that the 
Assyrian army advanced in two separate divisions,” and that the 
two cities were attacked simultaneously. If this assumption is cor- 
rect, it is very possible that Ashkelon was captured before Ekron; 
and consequently the annalist is justified in telling the story of the 
siege and capture of Ashkelon prior to the description of the siege 
of Ekron. In accordance with this assumption, the story may be 
reconstructed as follows: 


After Sennacherib had subdued Sidon and placed Ethbaal 
on the throne, a number of princes’ who had been wavering, 
whether to join the revolt or whether to remain loyal to 
Assyria, made up their mind and came with their presents 
and their pledges of allegiance. After that, the army divided 
into two divisions; one proceeding along the coast, and the 
other advancing towards Ekron. En route to Ashkelon, Beth- 
Dagon, Joppa and Benebarka were captured. The city of 
Ashkelon fell very quickly, but Ekron was able to hold out for 
a longer period.” Shortly after the fall of Ashkelon and 
prior to the fall of Ekron, the news came that the long expected 
Egyptian army was advancing. Sennacherib decided to join 


A Critical Source Study 23 


forces with the northern division and sent instructions to raise 
temporarily the siege of Ekron and to meet him at Eltekeh. 
There the two armies met and the Egyptian army was defeated. 
The two divisions divided once more—the one returning to 
Ekron to complete the siege and the other to begin the con- 
quest of Judah. 


We are now confronted with our second problem—when did 
Hezekiah decide to pay tribute? If we assume that he sent his 
embassy to Sennacherib prior to the battle of Eltekeh, then it is 
easy to account for Lachish as the place where Sennacherib had 
his headquarters.” If, however, Hezekiah decided to surrender 
after the battle of Eltekeh, in accordance with the above analysis, it 
is hard to explain Sennacherib’s presence in Lachish. There was 
no longer any occasion for Sennacherib to be afraid of danger from 
Egypt; nevertheless, Sennacherib, instead of advancing to Jerusa- 
lem immediately, first went down to Lachish. (From Eltekeh!) 
There must have been a reason—what was it? 

A way out of the difficulty is to assume that the two divisions did 
not separate immediately after the battle of Eltekeh, but after Ekron 
had been captured and punished; and that the division, which had 
been operating in the North was sent to blockade Jerusalem, 
whereas Sennacherib with the main division retraced his steps along 
the coast, and began his operations in Judah with the siege of 
Lachish. It is possible that Sennacherib may have surmised that it 
would not be necessary to capture Jerusalem, that to blockade the 
city and to reduce one walled town after another would bring 
Hezekiah to terms. On the other hand, it may have been his plan, 
in case Hezekiah should not do so, to join his Rabshakeh after he 
had devastated the entire country and to begin a siege of Jerusalem 
in earnest. Such a plan would have been devised only if Jerusalem 
had been particularly well defended, and if Sennacherib recognized 
that it would take many years to reduce it. 

If we accept the assumption that Sennacherib attempted the siege 
of Tyre, but was unable to capture it, then it is logical to infer that 
after Sennacherib had failed to capture one impregnable fortress, 
he would have been glad to avoid the necessity of attempting the 
siege of another, if there was any possibility for him to do so.™ 


24 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


There is an important distinction, however, between the two assump- 
tions. In the one case, it is assumed that the annalist made a de- 
liberate omission, because he did not wish to include in his account a 
description of a misadventure. In the other, it is not assumed that 
Sennacherib attempted something and failed, but rather that he did 
not make the attempt. He may have failed to make the attempt be- 
cause he was not able to, or because he did not wish to, since he 
was able to attain his ends without the effort. The issue resolves 
itself to the question whether Sennacherib’s treatment of Hezekiah 
is to be regarded as an attainment of his end or not. 

As for the last question, there can be no doubt that if the chrono- 
logical sequence was deliberately changed, there must have been a 
valid reason, and the most logical assumption to make as to what 
that reason might have been, is that there was something that the 
Assyrian annalist wanted to cover up. If so, Il K xvur 17ff. would 
be a strong indication that there was a subsequent stage to the cam- 
paign, which did not turn out as happily for Sennacherib as the 
first part. On the other hand, if we do not grant that the Annals 
in their present form indicate that the chronological sequence has 
been tampered with, then there is no need to make this assumption. 

Hypothesis III. It is possible to recognize the account in the 
Assyrian annals as a complete veracious and accurate description 
of the events that transpired during the campaign of 701, without 
necessarily impugning the historicity of the second part of the 
Biblical account (If K xvin 17ff). It may be assumed that this 
part of the Biblical story does not refer to the same events as the 
Rassam cylinders (or the later editions of the Annals) and II K xvi 
13-16. This assumption was made by Rawlinson as far back as 
1864. His suggestion, however, was not given serious consideration. 
In recent years the hypothesis of a second campaign of Sennacherib 
has been put forth once more by Winckler. Winckler’s suggestion 
has been favorably received by many scholars. This hypothesis is 
based on the following propositions. 


(a) The discovery of the fragment (VA 3310) proves con- 
clusively that there was a campaign in Arabia during the latter 
part of Sennacherib’s reign. (Formerly, the only evidence 
that such a campaign had taken place consisted of a reference 


A Critical Source Study 25 


by Essarhaddon to the capture of an Arabic fortress by his 
father.) *° 


(b) Herodotus (II 141) in his description of what is be- 
lieved to be a corresponding story to If K x1x 35 refers to 
Sennacherib as King of the Arabians and Assyrians. If the 
invasion of Egypt by Sennacherib was an outgrowth of the 
Arabian campaign, Herodotus’ error is not as inexplicable as 
it would have been, if the invasion of Egypt had been a part 
of Sennacherib’s third campaign.” 


(c) The Biblical account refers to an Egyptian army led by 
King Tirhakah. It has been definitely established that Tir- 
hakah could not have been King as early as 701. 


(d) If K x1x 36, 37 give the impression that the death of 
Sennacherib occurred shortly after the events described in 


TK XIX OO, 


Since this hypothesis presupposes a specific interpretation of the 
Biblical sources, I have deemed it advisable to postpone the discus- 
sion of these propositions to the next chapter, in which the Biblical 
sources will be examined and analyzed. 


26 Notes to Chapter | 


1The Assyrians were as proud of their building achievements as of their glorious 
deeds on the field of battle. They were particularly interested in recording their 
building or rebuilding of temples to the gods to whom they ascribed their victories, 
and the building of palaces which they regarded as concrete and visible expressions 
of their power. : . ‘ i 

2The Taylor Prism was discovered in Mosul in 1880—and published in IR37-42— 

861. 
; 8The variations in the different editions are sumetimes no greater than the varia- 
tions existing in different rescensions of the same edition. They consist in the use 
of an ideogram instead of the syllabic signs; the use of a different word, a different 
form, the omission of a phrase, or unimportant abbreviations. Somretimes a_ later 
edition may be more explicit than the earlier editions, e.g., the building portion of 
Cylinder 103,000 is far more complete than the building portion of the Taylor Prism. 
For reasons see—discussion on Cylinder 103,000 on page 5. 

This is not always so. Cylinder 113,203 contains a detailed account of Sen- 
nacherib’s first campaign, which is much fuller than the account of the first camr- 
paign to be found in any of the later editions. 

4Published by S. Smith—First Campaign of Sennacherib—London, 1921. 

5A]] the earlier editions are barrel-shaped cylinders, on which the text is inscribed 
in long horizontal lines from end to end. [or the later editions, cylinders of this 
form do not furnish sufficient space for the inscription. The scribes of the later 
editions, therefore, used prisms which were divided into columns, each column rep- 
resenting one face of the prism. It is often possible to identify a fragment as 
pelonging to an early or late edition by its form. 

®6There have been found a number of clay tablets containing a description of one 
cantpaign. These tablets were probably rough drafts from which other inscriptions 
were copied. For the display inscriptions on stone or on marble it was particularly 
important that the workmen should be provided with a rough draft. In the recent 
excavations at Assur, conducted by the Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft, there was 
found such a rough draft of the seventh expedition. See O. Schroeder Keilschrift- 
texte Historischeni Inhalts v.2 (1922) v.37 of the Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichun- 
gen of the Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft. 

7It is referred to in Bezold’s study of variants (Keilenschriftliche Bibliothek II 

. 80ff. as B-1. 

8Abhandlungen d.k. Gess. d.Wiss. zu Géttingen 1850. It was also published by 
Layard-Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character pp. 63-64. (In spite of the fact 
that Layard’s publication is so much later than Grotenfeld’s, Talbot [fox maintains 
that it is less reliable and therefore he found it necessary to revise his first trans- 
lation, which was based on Layard.) For transliteration and translation see Oppert- 
Expedition en Mesopatomie v.1 pp. 297ff. H. Fox Talbot-J.R.A.S. XVIII pp. 76ff. 
Records of the Past v.1 pp. 23ff. Menant-Annales des rois d’Assyrie pp. 225If. 
Smith, G.—History of Sennacherib, 1f, 24f, 43f, 140f, and Bezold-Inschriften San- 
herib’s—K.B. II pp. 80ff. 

®There must have been a large number of rescensions of this edition. There have 
been found 5 complete similar cylinders and many duplicate fragments. The most 
important of these broken fragments in the Kojunjik Collection of the British Museum 
ire: K1636, K1637, IKK1638, K1639, K1640, K1641, K1642, K1644, K1646, K1647, 
K1648, K1650. These fragments are important because prior to the discovery of 
the Rassam cylinders, this edition of the Annals was only known through these frag- 
ments. See Smith—History of Sennacherib (Cylinder B.) 

These duplicates are described by Bezold—Die Thontafelsammlungen des British 
Museum—Sitzungsber. d. K. P. Akk. d. Wiss. zu Berlin-—1888 p. 756. 

10This rescension is usually taken as the standard and others are regarded as 
duplicates. 

UThis was presented to the Turkish Government by the British Museum in August, 
1883. In literature published between the summer of 1880 and the summer vf 1883, 
ib ise wererreds to, as 180.07-220) 43: 

12See Meissner Rost-Die Bauinschriften Sanheribs p. 1. 

They are referred to in Bezold’s study of the variants K.B. II, p. 80ff. as B2, 
B3, B4, Bd, respectively and the Constantinople Cylinder (80, 7-19, 3) as B6. The 
duplicate fragments are referred to by Bezold as follows: B7-K1636; BS-K1637; 
B9-K1640; B10-K1641; B11-K1642; B12-K1644. 

14See W,V.D.0:G,, v.37-K. Ail.. v2. 

V.A. 7516 (Ass. 5040) V.A. 7508 (Ass. 1248), V.A.7509 (Ass. 1261) are pub- 
lished as Nos, 117-119, p. 73. 

Line 56 to the end. Evetts-Z.A. vol. III pp. 311ff. The greater part of the 
text published by Evetts is the building portion of the inscription. Our interest 
centers chiefly on lines 56-58, which deals with Hezekiah’s tribute. Additions in the 
Rassam Cylinder, i.e., those lines which are not found in the Taylor Prism, are 
given by Delitzsch A.L. p. xiv. For a translation and transliteration of Sennacherib’s 
campaign in Palestine, see Bezold’s K.B. II pp. 84ff and Rogers—Cuneiform Paral- 
lels to Old Testament pp. 340ff. Since this study has been prepared, Lunckenbill. 
D.D.—The Annals of Sennacherib, has been published (August, 1924). Luckenbill 
contains a transliteration and translation of lines 56-60 (p. 60) 77-79 and 90-92 (p. 





~) 


Notes to Chapter | 2 


102). It is a pity that Luckenbill did not translate the entire cylinder. This 
cylinder is of special interest to students of Biblical History and should have been 
published in its entirety. 

16The historical portions of this inscription (with restorations from Taylor Prism) 
were translated by G. Smith—Discoveries, pp. 296ff. It is referred to by Bezold, 
in his study of variants, as A2 (K.B. v. II, p. 80). 

Some scholars believe that K.4492, a small fragment of a prism, in its entirety, 
contained an account of only four campaigns. Column VIII of 4492 is published by 
King—C.T. v. XXVI pl. XXXIX, (King seems to assume that K.4492 is a duplicate 
fragnrent of cylinder No. 103,000). V.A. 8436 may also have been a different rescen- 
sion of the same edition. It is published—-W.V.D.O.G. v.37, No. 121, p. 74. 

17Published by King in 1909 C.T. v.XXVI. 

18See G. Smith—History of Sennacherib—(cylinder D). King (lc. p. 10 n. 2) 
assumes that K.1674 contained an account of five campaigns. Has he confused 
K.1674 with K.1675? 

Extracts from the histories of Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus, bearing 
on the first of these two campaigns, have been preserved in the work of later 
Greek Historians. These excerpts are derived from Berosus, A brief summary of 
the two campaigns is given on the memorial slab of Sennacherib (see page 8) now 
in the possession of the Museum at Constantinople. From the sequence in the 
Sennacherib Memorial slab at Constantinople, it has been inferred that these cam- 
paigns took place during or immediately after the fifth campaign. On the basis of 
this inscription, (whch I have designated as the sixth edition) it is known that the 
first of these campaigns took place in 698 and the second in 695, because these 
campaigns are not given merely in order of sequence but are dated specifically. It 
is consequently possible to fix the date of the fifth campaign, as 695. 

20Since the account of the first five campaigns corresponds very closely with the 
later edition (Taylor Prisnr), which has been accepted as the standard inscription 
of Sennacherib’s reign, there has been no need of transliterating or translating that 
portion of the inscription. The new portions of the inscription have been pub- 
lished by King in Vol. XXVI of the Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets of 
the British Museum (Plates I-XXXVII) together with a transliteration and trans 
lation, introduction and analysis. 

A transliteration of the text bearing on these two campaigns, by Pinches, as we!! 
as translation and discussion, can be found in J.R.A.S. 1920, p. 387ff. 

2The first of these campaigns (Cilician) seems to have been a very important 
one. Its omission from the later editions, because it in no way enhanced the glory 
of the king, (since he himself took no part in it), and the elaboration of some 
of the minor campaigns, in which Sennacherib participated personally, throw liglit 
on the nature of Sennacherib’s Annals 

22We have already noted in the discussion of previous editions, that the building 
portion was very often the primary purpose of the inscription. This is particularly 
true of this inscription. The building portion occupies one half of the inscription 
(In the Taylor Prism the building portion occupies only one-sixth). It contains a 
great deal of information about Sennacherib’s building operations not to be foun! 
in the earlier or later editions. It sheds light on the topography of Nineveh, the 
walls of the city, and the position and names of the city gates. For a complete 
analysis of the building portion, see King, C.T. XXVI pp. 16-31 (PI. XVII1- 
XXXVII). 

°3Te limu of Belimuranni is repeated in the eponym canon; consequently, it is 
not possible to determine whether it was written in 691 or 686. Even if we accept 
the earlier date, there is a lapse of three years from the time of the last campaign 
described and the time of the inscription. There is also a long interval between 
the writing of this edition and the latest known previous edition. It is, of course, 
possible that intermediate editions existed, but that thus far none has been found. 
(103,000 is a comparatively recent discovery). 

It is usually assumed that the Taylor Prism was inscribed in 691 and not in 686. 
There is no reference in it to the destruction of Babylon (689). See note 32. 

Since this study has been prepared, Luckenbill has published the Text of a 
Prism of Sennacherib, Oriental Institute Prism, dated in the limmu of Gahilu (689) 
and, therefore, if the Taylor Prism was inscribed in 691, it is no longer the 
latest known edition. 

*4For a study of the variants, see Bezold—Inschriften Sanheribs—K.B. II pp. 80ff. 

The close correspondence between the Taylor Prism and the earlier editions refers 
to the account of the campaigns only—it does not refer to the portion of the inscrip- 
tions dealing with Sennacherib’s building activities. While Sennacherib’s palace was 
in process of being built, the scribes were interested in describing this process in 
detail. In the Sennacherib Prism, which was probably written to serve as a jounda- 
tion deposit in the walls of Nineveh, the scribe is interested chiefly in describing 
the building of the walls and gates, etc. He, in all likelihood, also includes the 
account of the building of the palace (with even greater detail than in the earlier 
editions) because he regards the building of the palace as the outstanding achieve- 
ment of Sennacherib’s reign. The scribe of the Taylor Prism, however, is not 
interested in Sennacherib’s earlier building achievements, and he dismisses the build- 


28 Notes to Chapter I 


ing of the palace with a brief summary. What he is interested in, iS Sennacherib’s 
latest activity, the building of the royal Armory which he describes in considerabie 
detail. rad 

%QOlmsted, A.T.E. (Assyrian Historiography, a source study. Columbia Mo., 1916) 
is quite right in pointing out the absurdity of referring to an older inscription as 
the duplicate of a later inscription. All references to the Assyrian Annals in con- 
nection with the Palestine campaign should-be to the Rassam Cylinders, and yet 
they are almost always made to the Taylor Prism. ' 

The harm done by this procedure is mitigated by the fact that the account ot 
the third campaign, in the Rassam cylinders, corresponds closely to the account of 
that campaign in the Taylor Prism. : 

Our chief gain in possessing the third, as well as the later edition, is our con- 
fidence that the Assyrian record was not written for the first time ten years aiter 
the events transpired. One of my reasons for introducing the description of the 
various editions of the annals, is to make clear the relations existing between the 
Taylor Prism and the earlier editions, so that the reader may know specifically the 
advantages that the more recent writers have over their predecessors, who based 
their conclusions on the Taylor Prism exclusively. 

26It was probably found at Nebi-Yunus, in the foundations of the palace of 
Sennacherib, by the natives in search of alabaster bas-reliefs to burn into iime for 
nrortar. 

27Since it was the first known inscription to contain an Assyrian Parallel to the 
Biblical account of Sennacherib’s invasion of Palestine. Interest has centered 
chiefly on col. II 1. 84-col. III line 41, the part of the inscription dealing with the 
third campaign. 

23The reader is referred to the following of the more recent transliterations and 
translations—Bezold-Sanherib’s Inschriften in K.B. (II pp. S80Off.) and Rogers, 
C.P.0.T. pp. 3840-344. For a comprehensive bibliography see Catalogue of the 
Cuneiform Tablets of the Kojunjik Collection of the British Museum Vol. IV p. 
1690 c.f.Bezold-Babylonisch-Assyrische Literatur p. 96. . 

22These sculptures help to throw considerable light on many events, which can 
not be adequately reconstructed from the inscriptions alone. Jt is necessary, how- 
ever, to guard against the reading into the sculptures a story different from that 
which the sculptor intended to tell—many of the conclusions based on the sculptures 
must necessarily be regarded as hypothetical. 

Professor Olmstead, in his History of :Assyria (New York. 1922), as a result 
of his intuitive comprehension of many of the sculptures, which were hitherto not 
understood, has been able to give a fuller and more vivid account of many events 
than is to be found in any of the earlier histories of Assyria. 

30e.g, Bavian inscription—cut into rock at a place where the irrigation works 
were built for bringing water into Babylon—17 miles northeast of Whorsabad—on 
east bank of R.Ghazir (now a Kurdish village). Because of the conspicuous posi- 
tion of this inscription, it has often arrested the attention of travelers. 

5Le.g, The Hasanah inscriptions referred to below. Because of their imaccessi- 
bility, they escaped the notice of travelers for a long time. 

“The first part of the Bavian inscription deals exclusively with the building of 
the aqueduct. The building of the aqueduct was probably the important event 
which this inscription was intended to commemorate. Historical interest, however, 
has centered chiefly on the second half, for this deals with the destruction of 
bas This inscription is the only Assyrian source for the destruction of 
Subylon. 

The sculptures consist of a representation of King Sennacherib and three panels 
containing corresponding versions of the text. Time has played considerable havoc 
with the text and many lines are difficult to read, but the fact that there are three 
versions make it easier to fill in the lacunae. The inscription was first copied by 
Layard and published by Rawlinson III R14. For transliteration and translation— 
see Pognon—L inscription de Bavian, 1879, Menant, Annales des Rois d’Assyrie 
isv4, p.) 234i. sand. Bezold KaBs TDi 16: 

33These inscriptions were set up to commemorate Sennacherib’s success in sub- 
duing the revolt of the seven principal towns in the Mt. Nippur section (Sen- 
nacherib’s fifth campaign). The account corresponds very closely to the corresponding 
account in Sennacherib’s Annals. These sculptured panels were probably engraved 
at the same time that the first draft of the fifth expedition was made. 

These inscriptions possess considerable historic value, because they help us to 
identify Nippur and to locate the position of the seven cities captured and destroyed 
during the first part of the fifth campaign. They are also of interest, because the 
emblems of the gods on four of the panels help us to identify the divine emblems 
of one of the more important gods which had not been identified before. 

They were copied and published by King, together with a description, photographs, 
transliteration and translation, P.S.B.A., Feb., 1903 (v. xxxv) pp. 66ff. 

Babylonian Room, Bricks Nos. 270-282. The text of some of these inscriptions 
may be found in Rawlinson I pl. VI. VII, VIII B, and in Layard pl. 38-55. In 
the recent excavations at Assur carried on by the Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft, 
there were found a number of inscriptions belonging to Semnacherib related to the 


Notes to Chapter | 29 


building of temples to the god Asur. (Of special interest to Assyriologists are those 
related to the so-called New Year’s Temple.) These are now in the possession of 
the Berlin Museum. See L. Messerschmidt—h.H.I.v. I (i911) p. 48 anda 49. (nese 
inscriptions are described in M.D.O.G. v.XXI p. 18, 15, 17; v.XXV p. 86; v. XXVI 
p. 27). O. Schroeder—K.H.1. v.I] (1922) p. 73ff. (A number of these inscriptions 
are translated by James Maynard, J.S.O.'R., Jan., 1924). W. Andrae Festungswerke 
von Assur—Textband (1913) pp. 176 and 177. (The text is not published, only a 
transliteration and translation are given). 

% Stone tablet probably suspended in Sennacherib’s smaller palace at Nebi-Yunus 
found by Layard. Published—I.R. plate 48f. Transliterated and translated by 
Bezold-K.B.I1 p. 118ff. See G. Smith, History of Sennacherib pp. jf, 39f, 68f, 102t, 
111f, 129f and Menant A.R.A., p. 230ff. 

%For the second half of the sixth expedition it is fuller than the Taylor Prism. 
Prior to the discovery of 108,000, this tablet was our only cuneiforur source for the 
two campaigns which are not included in the Taylor Prism. 

87Sennacherib’s Annals mention that there were forty-six walled cities outside 
of Jerusalem in Judah, whereas Ashkelon is assigned only four, and no mention 
is made of any cities subordinate to Ekron. (The capture of Eltekeh and ‘Timnah 
is referred to in connection with the defeat of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, whicn 
cleared the road to Ekron.) Sidon is assigned only seven cities, but stress is laid 
on their strength and wealth. No mention is made of Tyre 

%8The text of the Bull inscriptions was first published by laced Bull 1, plates 61, 62 
Bull 2- pl.59-60, Bull 3- pl.38-40a, Bull 4- 40b-42. Compare these with Rawlinson 
III, 1.W.A. 12-13. 

39Bulls II] and III contain a reference to the enthronement of Ashurnadinshur 
in Babylon, wnereas Bull IV omits it. From this fact, and from the inclusion of the 
sixth campaign in Bulls III and IV, Olmstead (Assyrian Historiography) establishes 
the date of the various inscriptions in the following manner. Prism No. 103,000, 
Bulls I and II he assumes were written before the news of the sixth campaign 
reached Assyria (probably a very short time before, since in all likelihood not a 
very long interval elapsed between the engraving of the inscriptions of the respective 
Bulls). Bull III he believes was being inscribed at the time that the news came, 
and therefore a hasty account was prepared and added to the inscription. For the 
fourth Lull, the scribe had ample time to elaborate the account of this campaign. 
This elaborated account corresponds very closely to the account of the later editions 
of the Annals. The news of the capture of Ashurnadinshur, Olmstead assumes, 
reached Assyria after the third bull had been inscribed and before the fourth, and 
therefore his name is omitted from Bull IV and all the later inscriptions and 
included in Bulls I, II, III and all the earlier editions, 

40Tt is interesting to note that the correspondence in the Bull inscriptions is so 
close that Bezold has not found it necessary to differentiate between them. He 
refers to the Bull inscriptions as Cl. 

4’[There are many slabs illustrating Sennacherib’s architectural endeavors. Of 
these the most interesting are: Slabs 51-52 of the Kojunjik Gallery, depicting the 
manner in which a colossal bull was moved into position—on slab 56 Sennacherib 
is pictured in his chariot exalting, and underneath is an inscription stating that 
the bulls were made in Balat (20 miles northwest of Nineveh) and dragged ta 
Nineveh. It seems that at Balat there was a quarry of white limestone from which 
the Bulls were made. 

42See Guide to Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities—pp. 53-55. 

43Picture of the bas-relief showing the Siege of Lachish is to be found in Rogers; 
History of Babylonia and Assyria, vII, opp. p. 3874. 

Layard; Monuments of Nineveh v.II, plate 23. For transliteration and transla- 
tion see Bezold-K.B. II p. 114. 

“11 K: XVIII, 14, 17, XIX 8, Isaiah XXXVI 2, XXXVII 8. 

46One of the questions that the reading of the story of the third campaign in 
the Assyrian Annals suggests is—why were the subsidiary cities of Sidon and 
Ashkelon mentioned by name, and not the Judean cities, Shall we assume that the 
Judean cities were captured without a struggle, and therefore the capture of any 
one city was not considered an achievement sufficiently worthy of being recorded— 
all that was considered important was the fact that Sennacherib had captured forty- 
six cities? In which case, why was a special bas-relief made to depict the siege 
of Lachish? 

‘7Schrader believes this hypothesis untenable. He does not believe it probable 
that Sennacherib should have twice chosen Lachish as his base of operations. G. A. 
Smith, H.G.H.L., p. 235, mentions that Lachish was used by Richard Coeur deLion 
twice as a base of operations. Prof. Fullerton uses this analogous situation as a 
means of refuting Schrader’s contention. 

48Jerusalem is usually referred to in the cuneiform inscription as Ur sa li im mu 
or Ur sa li im ma. 

49The likelihood of their referring to Jerusalem is very slight; ‘‘alammu’’ may 
have been the ending of a large number of cities. 

50Since this study has been prepared, Luckenbil! has published an inscription, 
which he refers to as The Oriental Institute Prism. The new prism is dated in the 


30 Notes to Chapter I 


limu of Gahilu (689), therefore if the Taylor Prism was inscribed in 691, it is no 
longer the latest known edition of the annals, but if it was inscribed in 656, it is 
still entitled to this designation. See note 23. 

6lThe part of Sennacherib’s palace nearest the river has been completely destroyed. 
As a result of the destruction of that part of the palace, we have undoubtedly been 
deprived of a great deal of material, which would have proved of historic interest. — 

“The discovery of the fragment dealing’ with the Arabian campaign described 
below tends to strengthen that hope. If at any time, there should be discovered a 
later edition of the Annals, and there should be no reference to a second campaign: 
in Palestine, it would not necessarily destroy that hypothesis, although it would 
considerably weaken its probability. On the other hand, if such a_ hypothetically 
discovered inscription should contain a specific reference to a second campaign in 
Palestine, then, what is now lypothesis, concerning the reliability of which there is 
a justified difference of opinion, would become an established fact, which all scholars 
would have to accept. Under such circumstances all books written atret the date 
of this hypotheticated discovery would have a decided advantage over all preceding 
works. 

Since this has been written, Luckenbill has published the Oriental Institute Prism, 
which is in all probability a later inscription. (See notes 23 and 50). This prism 
does not contain the accounts of any campaigns later than the eighth campaign, 
described by the Taylor Prism; but the hope expressed that a new edition of the 
annals, which will contain such material, may yet be found, is evidently not a vain 
one. 
58Prism A, col. II lines 55-57. Published by Layard. Plates No. 20-29 and Raw- 
linsons, I.R., 45-47. 

54h ragment of an alabaster tablet now in the possession of the Berlin Museum, 
registered as V.A. 3310. The find was first announced and the text translated by 
Scheil, O.L.Z., February, 1904, column 69. It was first published in 1907 (Vor- 
derasiatische schriftdenkmaler der NKoniglichen Museum zu Berlin Vorder-Asiatischen 
abteilung Heft I, Leipsig, 1907. It was translated by Ungnad in Gressman— 
Altorientalische Texte und Bilder p. 121 (Tubingen 1909) and by Rogers C.O.T. 
Unfortunately it is not known whence this fragment comes—it was acquired in 
Mosul. There is also a reference to a campaign in Arabia in one of the inscriptions 
found during the excavations in Assur,—Ass. 11047, lines 22-27 (Rev.) This inscrip- 
tion is published K.A.H.I. v.II, No. 119. 

55[t has naturally been assumed that this campaign took place some time after 
the Taylor Prism was inscribed or else it would have been included in these inscrip- 
tions. This assumption is not likely to be questioned. At the same time, it is neces- 
sary to point out, that there exists the possibility (even if it is not probable), that 
just as the story of the Cilician campaign is not recorded in the Taylor Prism, there 
may have been other campaigns (possibly including the campaign in question), which 
-were not recorded in the official annals. Such a circumstance might have happened 
if Sennacherib did not lead the campaign in person or, what is more likely, if for 
one reason or another the campaign as a whole did not reflect glory on the Assyrian 
emperor. 

50This is registered as 81, 2-4, 352. It is to be found in the Nineveh Gallery, 
Table-Case I, No. 82. In the second edition of the British Museum Guide (1908), 
it is referred to as 51, 9-2, 48. This is a wrong reference. 

In the catalogue of the Kojunjik Collection of the British Museum, p. 1784, there 
is a reference to a translation and transliteration in Budge, The Mummy, (Cambridge, 
1893) p. 249f. I have not been able to get hold of this book. In the 1925 edition 
there is no such transliteration and translation. There is a reference to it on p. 74. 

57A. T. Olmstead—History of Assyria (New York, 1923) p. 309. 

‘8The above inference is drawn from the fact that after the capture of Ashkelon, 
Sennacherib deposed Sidka and deported him and placed Sharruludari, the son of 
their former king, on the throne. 

5*Tt is important to note the absence of Tyre from the states that joined the 
rebellion, as welk as from those that decided to remain loyal to Assyria. Those 
scholars, who believe that the Assyrian annalist was careful to omit all elements of 
the story which were not favorable to the Assyrians, suspect that the omission of 
Tyre was deliberate. For a detailed annalysis of this theory and its implications, 
see pp. 19ff. 

From the fact that Sennacherib includes the King of Gaza amongst those to 
whom he allots part of the land of Judah, although the King of Gaza is not one of 
those who brought presents to him, it is possible to argue that not all the neutral 
and loyal states found it necessary to express their loyalty to Sennacherib. Tyre 
may have been one of such neutral states. The lack of reference to Gath, the fifth 
city in the Philistine Pentapolis, can not be used as a confirmation of this hypothesis, 
because Gath is not mentioned by any of the prophets after Amos, an! it is therefore 
safe to assume that Gath no longer existed as an independent city-state. 

‘Tt is possible that these states were originally in the revolt, but that they lost 
heart after Sennacherib’s first victory. (This view would explain the absence of 
(Gaza from amongst those who hurried to Sennacherib with their presents). It is 
also possible that these states decided to remain loyal from the Leginning—that their 


Notes to Chapter I 31 


hastening with their presents was merely a way of confirming their loyalty. 

S1Jsaiah X 27ff. is assunred to be_a description of an imaginary route, which the 
Assyrians had been expected to take. For other views of this passage, see Ch. III p. 93ff. 

8? Ashkelon was further south than Ekron. Why was it captured earlier? ‘This 
question is discussed on p. 22f. 

688These cities probably belonged to Ekron and not to Ashkelon. (They were 
situated considerably further north than Ekron). Was the error due to ignorance, 
or was it deliberate? See N. 102. 

6\Vhat gave Hezekiah courage to continue resistance, after all his allies had been 
crushingly defeated? See pp. 238it. for possible answers to this question. 

Kor surmises as to the possible reasons of Sennacherib see pp. 18ft. 

8Why should Sennacherib have been interested in watching the Egyptian frontier? 
Was he expecting the advance of a second Egyptian army? To answer this question 
in the affirmative is hardly consistent with the views underlying this hypothesis. 

8iIt is also possible to assume that Padi was released by Hezekiah at the time when 
he sued for peace. 

68In accordance with the Rassam cylinders (1. 58), Hezekiah had to give up in 
addition, his daughters and his harem, as a sign of complete surrender. 

68The object of the campaign is not stated. It is fair, however, to assume, even 
though it can not be stated with any degree of certainty, that Egypt was Sennacherib’s 
ultimate objective. Egypt was the ultimate goal of Assyria’s ambition in the West, 
not only because of the incentive of rich booty and spoils, but also because Assyria 
knew that its control in the West would not be complete as long as Egypt remained 
independent. (The frequent rebellions in the West, 735, 727, 720, 711 and 701, were 
all due to Egyptian intrigues and stimulation). 

7The Assyrian scribe in describing the Egyptian and Ethiopian bowmen, chariots 
and horses that came to the assistance of the Palestinian rebels, uses the phrase 
‘emuki la nibi’, ‘‘forces without number’’, (Taylor Prism Col. III 1.75). 

HHerodotus If 141. See ch. I] pp. 58f. 

fSchrader refers to it as a “‘Pyrrhic Victory.” C.O.T:. v.I, p. 300. 

™This is the view adocated by those who accept II K XVIII 17-XIX 8 as his- 
torical and XIX 9ff. as a parallel version of the former. See Ch. II pp. 46f. If we 
assume that 44989 329M2 39NS5m) are a gloss of a later writer, then the abrupt 
ending of the campaign, because of rumors of disquiet in Babylonia or elsewhere, 
would be in complete harmony with the prophecy contained in v.7. 

%Accordingly, it may be assumed that the rumor which Sennacherib heard, which 
caused him to abandon his plans, was not necessarily a rumor of disquiet in the 
East, but of the advance of a second Egyptian army, this time a real army, cf. 
Wellhausen in ‘“‘Bleek—Einleitung in d. Alte Testament’’, 256ff. 

™MSchraeder (C.O.T. V. I p. 300) suggests as proof. that there was something 
wrong about the victory at Eltekeh, the fact that the annalist has omitted the usual 
formula about the number of prisoners, chariots and trophies captured. 

7The scholars, who take this attitude, can contend, that the view that the annalist 
was trying to cover up something, would have never ‘been suggested, if the Assyrian 
annals had not been approached with a certain amount of bias in favor of the 
Biblical sources. 

™7 cf. treatment accorded to Hezekiah with that given to Sidka of Ashkelon. 

™The assumption that Hezekiah was the leading spirit in the revolt, is based on 
the fact that Jerusalenr was chosen as the place in which to incarcerate the pro- 
Assyrian Padi, who had refused to join the coalition against Assyria. This assump- 
tion is usually not questioned. It is confirmed by the Nebi Junus inscription, which 
is confined to Judah and Sidon exclusively. 

7 cf. the fate of Ekron. ; 

8See discussion of Isaiah XXII 9-11 and II Chr. XXXII 3-6 in regard to Jerusa- 
{em’s preparedness to withstand a long siege. 

81[t is possible to surmise, that the Egyptian contingent which met Sennacherib 
at Eltekeh, was led by Delta princes, whereas the rumor which Sennacherib heard, 
was of a large army led by the powerful Tirhakah. It is interesting to note, in_this 
connection, that in almost all of the editions of the annals, the reference is to Kings 
of Egypt, in the plural. In two rescensions of the Rassam cylinders (80, 7-19, 1 
and 80, 7-19, 38) however, Sarru is used instead of Sarrani. 

8This view does not harmonize with Herodotus. According to Herodotus, Sen. 
nacherib was the besieger; and the place where his army was encamped at the time 
that the plague broke forth—Pelusium. 

There is room for difference of opinion concerning the time when Tezekiah 
offered to pay tribute. This assumption implies that it was made prior to the battle 
of Eltekeh. 

8%The advocates of this hypothesis believe that Sennacherib never returned to 
Palestine—that the memory of his unhappy experiment never left hin. 

Invasion of Sennacherib—Bibliotheca Sacra v.63, p. 590ff. He quotes Tiele 
(Babylonisch-Assyrische Geschichte v..[1I—Gotha, 1888—p. 318) to indicate that it 
was customary for Assyrian kings to spare even the most obstinate, who voluntartiy 
or of necessity surrendered and delivered the presents demanded. He admits, how- 
ever, that Sennacherib, the king who so ruthlessly destroyed Babylon, is har'lyv te 
be suspected of a superfluity of mercy. 


Notes to Chapter 1 


ee) 
bo 


86In accordance with II] K XVIII 8, Hezekiah conquered the Philistines. It is 
possible that this conquest took place some time after 701, in order to win back 
the land that had been taken away from him. Some scholars, however, believe that 
Hezekiah played a leading role during the rebellion, because of his former conquest 
of the Philistines. If so, did Hezekiah ever get back the land he lost, and how? 

87Prof. Olmstead, (History of Assyria, p. 305), in commenting on the statement 
of the Assyrian annalist that he took 200,150 Judean prisoners, shows the impossibility 
of so large a number and its evident exaggeration. He suggests that it is very likely 
that the correct number is 150, and that the 200,000 was added by the scribe. Is it 
not possible that the description of the surrender of Hezekiah’s daughters and the 
royal harem is also due to the vivid imagination of the Assyrian scribe? 


88 do not see why Prof. Fullerton should not be able to accept such an assump- 
tion—for it does not interfere seriously with his theory, that Sennacherib did what 
he did out of choice, and not out of compulsion. Prof. Fullerton gives as his reason 
why Sennacherib was ready to leave Hezekiah on the throne. the fact that Hezekiah 
~had no rival claimant. It seems to me, that Sennacherib’s readiness to leave Hezekiah 
on the throne, would be much more dependent on the difficulty involved in removing 
him from it, than the question whether or not Hezekiah had any rival claimant to 
the throne. 


88See the discussion of I. XXIII 1-14. 
90*And now the king of Assyria invaded all Syria and Phoenicia in a hostile 
manner. The name of this king is.also set down in the archives of Tyre, for he 
made an expedition against Tyre in the reign of Eluleus; and Menander attests to 
it, who, when he wrote his chronology, and translated the archives of Tyre into 
the Greek language, gives us the following history;—‘One whose name was Eluleus, 
reigned thirty-six years; this king, upon the revolt of the Citteans, sailed to them 
and reduced them again to a submission. Against these did the king of Assyria send 
an army, and in a hostile manner overran all Phoenicia, but soon made peace with 
them all, and returned back; but Sidon, and Ace, and Palaetyrus, revolted; and 
many other cities there were which delivered themselves up to the king of Assyria. 
Accordingly, when the Tyrians would not submit to him, the king returned, and fell 
upon them again, while the Phoenicians had furnished him with sixty ships, and 
800 men to row them, and when the Tyrians had come upon them in twelve ships, 
and the enemry’s ships were dispersed, they took 500 men prisoners; and the reputa- 
tion of all the citizens of Tyre was thereby increased; but the king of Assyria 
returned, and placed guards at their rivers and aqueducts, who should hinder the 
Tyrians from drawing water. This continued for five years; and still the Tvrians 
bore the siege, and drank of the water they had out of the well they dug.’ And 
yer is what is written in the Tyrian archives concerning Shalmaneser, the king of 
ssyria. 
Josephus—Antquities of the Jews—Book IX, Ch. XIV, 2. 
Translated by W. Whiston, M. A. 


*lJosephus usually refers to Shalmaneser as ‘‘Salmanasares.” 

_ Ejselin (Sidon p. 49) infers from Josephus’ cautious statement, that the name 
is preserved in the Tyrian archives, that Josephus was conscious that the name had 
come down to him in a corrupt form. 

"The latest book on the History of Assyria reverts to the theory that the siege 
eke ee during the reign of Shalmaneser. See Olmstead—History of Assyria, 
Be) in ae 

_Since this study has been prepared. the third volume of the Cambridge Ancient 
History has appeared. Sidney Smith, the author of the section on Assyria, concurs 
with: this: view. CAH wT, Ch. Ty pid3. 

1.c. pp. 46ff. cf. Jeremias—Tyrus pp. 29ff. 

*tFiselin refers to him as Tiglath-Pilether III, in accordance with the old nomencla- 
tune. 

% Accordingly, Sennacherib’s reference to having placed Tuba’lu on the royal 
throne, must be interpreted as having transferred all the Tyrian possessions to his 
regency. 

In 700 he was busy in Babylonia (the fourth campaign). 

There is another possibility. We may assume that the siege of Tyre took place 
during the latter part of Sennacherib’s reign, concerning which the Assyrian inscrip- 
tions are silent. However, the advocates of the hypothesis that there were two 
campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine, would hardly want to postulate a campaign 
important enough to include a five year siege of one city. 

This assumption is verv favorable to those who wish to discredit the Assyrian 
annals, and who assume that the omission of all reference to Tyre in the Rassam 
cylinders and in the subsequent editions of the annals, is an indication that the 
scribe only described those things, which added lustre to his king, and omitted all 
unpleasant references. 


99 | ot ) a - . . 

Tf the name of the Assyrisn monarch given by Josephus is regarded as badly 
corrupted, there 1s no reason for assuming that it must necessarily be a corruption 
ot a name beginning with S. f 


Notes to Chapter | 33 


100Essarhaddon—K. 3082 1.12-14. Ashurbanipal—Rassam Cylinder, col.II, 1.49ff. 
cf. Cylinder A, Col.II 1.88. See G. Smith—History of Ashurbanipal, p. 59. 

10Another question in regard to the chronological sequence that is frequently 
raised, is in connection with the reinstatement of Padi as King of Ekron. If 
Hezekiah’s submission took place after the blockade, and if the blockade was begun 
after the fall of Ekron, how was Sennacherib able to replace hint on the throne at 
the time that Ekon was captured? Padi mray have been released at the time that 
the tribute was paid, (one of the conditions of surrender, although not mentioned 
either by the Assyrian or by the Hebrew sources), or at the time that Hezekiah sent 
his embassy to Lachish to negotiate the conditions of surrender. (The last supposi- 
tion would explain why the release of Padi is not mentioned as one of the conditions 
of surrender). it is not logical to assume that Hezekiah released Padi sufficiently 
early to have made it possible for Padi to ascend his throne immediately after the 
battle of Ekron. 

I have not included this question, however, because the answer that is usually 
given, is very sound and not open to criticism. The Assyrian scribe did not wish 
to imply that Padi was made King of Ekron prior to the blockade of Jerusalem; but, 
while discussing the fate of Ekron, he thought it best to relate the whole story, 
instead of going on with the blockade of Jerusalem, and then coming back to Ekron 
after Hezekiah’s surrender. This is purely a question of literary organization, and 
in no way does it affect the authenticity of the annals. 

102]t has been pointed out above, that the cities mentioned as subsidiary to Ashke- 
lon, in all probability belonged to Ekron. The supposition that the Assyrian army 
advanced in two divisions, makes it possible to suggest the following explanation 
of the error. Since Beth-Dagan, Joppa, and Benebarka are along the coast, or near 
the coast, whereas Ekron is somewhat inland, it is very likely that these cities were 
captured by the same division as captured the city of Ashkelon, and consequently 
were associated together. 

1aMenahem of Shamrsimuruna, (place unidentified), Abdili’ti of Arvad, Urumilki 
of Byblos, Mitinti of Ashdod, Puduilu of Ammon, Kammusunadbi of Moab, Malik- 
rammu of Edom. It is interesting to note that Sillibel of Gaza is not mentioned, 
although the fact that he received part of the territory which was taken away from 
Hezekiah, is an indication that he too remained loyal to Assyria. 

104To assume, that the main division, (the one led by Sennacherib himself), was 
the one that proceeded along the coast to the South, does not necessarily inrply that 
his objective was Egypt. He was probably aware that the Palestinian allies were 
expecting aid from Egypt, and he would naturally want to be prepared to meet the 
Egyptian advance. 

105Tf Ashkelon was attacked by the main army, whereas Ekron was attacked by a 
small division, Ashkelon would naturally have succumbed sooner. 

106],achish commands the road to Egypt. If Sennacherib was expecting an Egyptian 
army, (or if he was planning to attack Egypt), Lachish would have naturally been 
the first objective for the coast division. 

107Those who believe in the authenticity of the Assyrian sources, must necessarily 
assume that the Egyptian army, which was defeated at Eltekeh, was a powerful 
army, and there is little room for the hypothesis that there was danger of a second 
army. 

108There are different theories about the blockade, the time when it was started, 
its nature, etc. There are some scholars, who believe that the reference in II K XVIII 
17 to the military escort that accompanied Rabshakeh 445 5:mris a reference to the 


army that was assigned to the task of blockading Jerusalem. 

109The difficulties involved in an attempt to capture Jerusalem can hardly be com- 
pared with those presented by Tyre, an imrpregnable island fortress. Nevertheless, 
it must not be assumed that the capture of Jerusalem could have been accomplished 
with little effort (cf. the subsequent history of Jerusalem, as well as the earlier). 
Jerusalem was probably the most difficult city to take in all Palestine and Syria, 
with the exception of the island fortress. Sennacherib was undoubtedly aware what 
a siege of Jerusalem would have implied. The stubborn resistance of Damascus and 
Samaria was undoubtedly a familiar story to him. If he could accomflish his ends 
without going to the trouble of attempting to besiege Jerusalem, he probably would 
have been most happy to spare himself that effort. 

1l0Essarhaddon Prism—Col. II, lines 55-57. Published I.R., pl.45-47. 

For translation, see Rogers, C.P.O.T., p. 354. 

S. Smith identifies A-du-mu-u al dannuti (mat) A-ri-bi- with Edom. He cites 
a passage in the Talmud (Berachoth 28a) in which reference is made to Sennacherib’s 
having taken the Ammonites and Moabites into captivity. 


599 sons ASy IID yaw.) 1A IPA aNiDs pIy 1D) ywin 295 95 abe 


“yay apy m5oaa ox) oxy mipixnm 595 mx 59523 siwRK 
I do not believe, however, that this statement of Rabbi Joshua is based on historic 
tradition. Joshua himself cites in support of his statement I X 13, part of the boastful 
speech that Isaiah attributes to Sennacherib. R. Joshua probably assumred that this 
boast was based on historic occurrences. The application to Moab and Ammon has 
probably no other basis than R. Joshua’s desire to find a way of admitting the 


34 Notes to Chapter I 


proselyte Ammonite into the community, despite the prohibition expressed in Deut 
XXIII 4. 

If this statement had been based on a definite historic tradition, it would have 
served as a confirmation of the theory that Sennacherib waged two campaigns in 
Palestine, because he surely did not take the Ammonites and Moabites into captivity 
during his third campaign. The Amnronites and Moabites were amongst those who 
bought their security at the very beginning of that camapign. 

1uSee the analysis of Herodotus, II 141 Ch. II pp. 56ff. 

12—n Ch. II p. 51f. it is pointed out that Tirhakah could have been in command 
of the Egyptian, army during the reign of his uncle Shabaka. See Breasted—History 


of Egypt, p. 552. 


CHAPTER II. 


THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF SENNACHERIB’S INVASION OF 
PALESTINE 


While most of the Assyrian inscriptions described in the previous 
chapter are dated, and we know exactly how long an interval trans- 
pired from the event described to the time of writing, there is no 
definite way of ascertaining at what time the portions of the Bible 
dealing with our problems were first written. Furthermore, from 
the very nature of cuneiform inscriptions and the manner in which 
they have been preserved, we know that the text of each inscription 
has not been tampered with and that the text of those portions 
which have not been defaced, has come down to us in the identical 
form in which it was originally inscribed on a particular prism, 
cylinder or tablet. On the other hand, from the manner in which 
the Biblical text has come down to us, we know that there is no way 
of ascertaining the form in which any particular text may have been 
written originally. 


Consequently, critical analysis must necessarily be hypothetical. 
Concerning some texts, there is sufficient probability in favor of a 
particular hypothesis, and there is a general consensus of opinion 
about them amongst scholars. Concerning other texts, however, no 
suggested hypothesis meets all the difficulties involved; and the 
diversity of opinion as to which hypothesis is more likely to be cor- 
rect, must of necessity be very great. Most of the texts that have 
any bearing on our problem belong to the latter category. 


It is the purpose of this chapter to investigate the accounts of 
Sennacherib’s invasion found in the Bible, from the point of view 
of their problematic elements, and to note the relation between dif- 
ferences in regard to the manner of meeting these problems, and 
differences in regard to the historic reconstruction of the events 
described in these accounts. In the following chapter, a similar 
analysis will be made of the prophecies of Isaiah, which are be- 
lieved to be a contemporary with the events discussed in this study,’ 
and which therefore furnish unconscious evidence’ concerning the 
conditions in Judea during that period. 

The Biblical account of Sennacherib’s invasion of Palestine is 


36 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


found in II Kings xvm1 13—x1x 37, in almost the identical form in 
Isaiah CH. XxxvI and xxxvul, and in an abridged form in II Chron- 
icles xxx11 1—23. Because of the close correspondence between 
the accounts in Isaiah and Kings, they may be treated as different 
rescensions of the same source. The abridged account in Chronicles, 
however, will be treated as an independent account, despite the fact 
that it is either derived from the account in Kings and Isaiah, or 





from the same sources from which these accounts are derived. 


A. Il KINGS XVIII 13—XIX 37 
Isaiah XXXVI—XXXVII 

These two rescensions correspond to one another very closely. 
There are, it is true, a number of words and phrases in the account 
in Kings, which are omitted in the corresponding verses in Isaiah.° 
There are also, here and there, differences in grammatical construc- 
tion, spelling and the like.“ None of these textual variants, how- 
ever, has any special importance for the historic reconstruction’ of 
the events described. There is, however, one important difference in 
the two rescensions, viz., the omission in the Isianic account of any 
verses corresponding to II K xvmr 14-16.’ 


l. II K XVIII 14-16 

The omission of these verses from one rescension tends to differ- 
entiate them from the rest of the account in which they are con- 
tained. This differentiation is intensified by the fact that there is 
a marked difference in style. These differences seem to indicate that 
these verses are derived from a source distinct in origin from xvm 
17ff. The belief that they come from an independent source is 
further strengthened by the fact that the name of the king in vv.14-16 
is always given aS 153m, whereas in v.13 and 17ff. and in Isaiah 
XXXVI-XXXIX, it is always given as jym:ptn_ . Consequently, there 
is a general consensus of opinion amongst scholars,” that these verses 
are derived from a source different than that from which the subse- 
quent portion has been derived. 


PROBLEM I—From what source or sources has I! KXVIII 14-16 been 
derived ? 

The style and content of these verses give the impression that they 

are excerpts from official records. Vv. 14 and 15 seem to be taken 


A Critical Source Study 37 


from Royal or State annals and v. 16 from Temple annals. 

That there were state annals kept in the Government archives is 
evident from the fact that one of the officers of the king was called 
s9515  (Recorder.) Moreover, because of the frequent references 
to Ay) 99565 Deon oss aD (Book of Chronicles of the 
Kings of Judah), we are quite certain that the Books of Kings con- 
tain extracts from these annals, taken either directly from the ar- 
chives, or else from a book’ of annals prepared on the basis of the 
official records. 

It is not possible to state with an equal degree of positiveness, that 
there were Temple records, and that excerpts from these Temple 
records are found in the Books of Kings, because there is no reference 
in Hebrew Scriptures to such records or to Temple recorders? 
Nevertheless, many scholars are ready to entertain such a hypo- 
thesis, because there are a number of passages, which have all the 
earmarks of being excerpts from an official Temple record. V.16 
is one of these passages. In v.15 is recorded the fact that in order 
to meet Sennacherib’s demands, Hezekiah had to make an inroad 
into the Temple treasures. V.16 seems to represent an entry that 
was made by a Temple scribe at the time that this inroad was made. 
The theory that v.16 is derived from a different source than vv.14 
and 15 is supported by the words yonn nyo. 

If we accept the theory that vv.14 and 15 are derived from state 
annals and v.16 from Temple annals, the source value of these pas- 
sages is enhanced because v.16 confirms vv.14 and 15. 


ProsB_LeM II.—What is the relation of v.13 to vv. 14-167? Is it de- 
rived from the same source as they are, or is it derived from 


the same source as II K XVIII \7ff.? 


V.13 is found in the two rescensions. The name of the King of 
Judah is spelled yq°ptn and not wry . Consequently, since v.13 
does not meet either of the two criteria that have been used for dis- 
tinguishing vv.14-16 from the rest of the account, the most natural 
inference to draw concerning v.13 is that it is derived from the same 
source as I] K xvin 17ff. To do so, however, makes untenable the 
position of those scholars who see an irreconcilable conflict between 
vv.14-16 and 17ff., and, as a result, conclude that the two can not 
refer to the same events,” because 13b is in complete harmony with 


38 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


vv.14-16. and whatever conflict exists between vv.14-16 and 17ff. 
also exists between 13b and 17ff. In order to maintain their thesis, 
it is necessary for these scholars to prove that v.13 belongs to the 
same source as vv.14-16. There is no doubt that vv.14-15 can not 
stand by themselves; that in the original source from which they 
have been excerpted, they must have been preceded by an introduc- 
tory statement describing Sennacherib’s invasion of Palestine. Ac- 
cordingly, these scholars can assume that v.13 represents such an 
mtroductory statement. However, if we assume that v.13 is derived 
from the annals, how can we explain the incorporation in the Isianic 
rescension of that verse and the omission of verses 14-16? And 
how can we account for the spelling of the name of the king? 

If we assume that the Isianic rescension is derived from Kings, 
the first question does not present any serious difficulty. It is true 
that it is not possible to assume that the editor of Isaiah omitted 
vv. 14-16 frem his excerpt, because he sensed a contradiction between 
these verses and the subsequent account; for in that case, he would 
have been compelled to omit 13b. But it is possible to assume that 
the editor of Isaiah omitted these verses from his excerpt because 
Isaiah played no part in the events described by them, and that 
he did include v.13, because he needed some such statement to serve 
as an introduction to the subsequent account. 

If we assume that 13a is derived from the annals, the second ques- 
tion can not be disposed of so easily. It becomes necessary to give 
up the theory that any significance is to be attached to the manner 
in which the king’s name is spelled. It will have to be assumed 
that the spelling is interchangeable, and that it is purely an acci- 
dental circumstance that it is spelled one way in vv.14-16, and an- 
other in II K xvi 17-xx 19. It is important to note, however, 
that only those scholars can accept 13a as a part of the annals, who 
are ready to accept 715 as the correct date for the accession of Heze- 
kiah.”. Those scholars who believe that there is more likelihood 
that 727 or 720° is the correct date, must necessarily assume that 
13a represents a chronological notice inserted by the editor, who 
prepared the framework of the Book of Kings. The presence of this 
chronological notice in the Isianic rescension is not surprising if it is 
assumed that the Isianic rescension is taken from Kings. 

Most scholars believe that a comparison of the differences in the 





A Critical Source Study 39 


two rescensions does seem to indicate that the Isianic rescension is 
borrowed from Kings.” They believe that it is more natural to 
assume that a copyist would omit superfluous words or phrases,” 
than that he would deliberately add to the text and elaborate the 
phraseology.” The arguments in favor of the usually accepted 
theory that Isaiah is borrowed from Kings are very strong. Prof. 
Olmstead, however, in an article entitled, “The Earliest Book of 


Kings,” suggests in a very convincing manner that if the editor of 
Isaiah were copying from a document containing vv.14-16, he would 
not have omitted them from his rescension. There can be no doubt 
that verses 14-16 were present in the oldest compilation of the Book 
of Kings.” Consequently, if we accept Olmstead’s theory that these 
verses would have been copied if they were present in the document 
used by the editor of Isaiah, then we must assume that Isaiah was 
not derived from Kings either in an early or late form. 

If we assume that the two rescensions were derived independently,” 
it is dificult to ascribe v.13 to the annals, because if the two re- 
scensions were derived from more than one source, it is difficult to 
account for the close correspondence between them. In view of the 
fact that in both rescensions there is only one quotation from the 
annals, and in both cases it occurs at the very beginning, the coinci- 
dence implied is not so remarkable as to make it impossible to be- 
lieve that each of the rescensions is a composite of two sources which 
have been faithfully adhered to.” If these composites were derived 
independently, there would be nothing strange in the fact that the 
author of one rescension copied several verses from the annals, 
whereas the author of the other confined himself to one verse.” It 
is, however, much more natural for those who believe that the two 
rescensions were derived independently, to ascribe II K xvi 13b to 
the same source as II K xvit1 17ff. The implication of this decision 
has already been pointed out. 

If If K xvi 13a is construed as a chronological notice pre- 
pared by the editor of Kings, how can its presence in the Isianic 
rescension be accounted for, when it is taken for granted that the 
Isianic version is not derived from Kings? Only by assuming that 
I xxxvi la does not represent the original introduction to lb, and 
that la was substituted for the original introduction by a late glossa- 
tor, who was influenced by the Kings version. Would such a glossa- 


40 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


tor have failed to add vv.14-16 to the Isianic rescension? Such a 
supposition is possible, but it is not based on probabilities. 

If we assume that the Kings rescension was derived from the 
Isianic, is it possible to contend that Isaiah xxxvi lb is an excerpt 
from the annals? Only, if we are ready to grant the far-fetched 
possibility that the author of the Kings, while making a copy of the 
Isianic account, was not satisfied with a limited quotation from the 
annals, and although he made little or no change in the remaining 
portion of the text, took advantage of the fact that the state annals 
were also at his disposal and added vv.14-16 to 13b. It is again 
more natural to suppose that Isaiah xxxvi lb belonged to the same 
source as that from which Isaiah xxxvi 2ff. has been derived. The 
implications of such a supposition have already been pointed out. 


ProsLem II]—What is the reiation of II K XVIII 14-16 
to XVIII \7ff.? 


Because of the close correspondence between II K xvmi 13-16 
and the Assyrian annals, and because II K xvin 17ff. differs in its 
implications not only from the Assyrian annals, but also from 
II K xvui 13b-16 (which is believed to be derived from the Hebrew 
annals), there are some scholars who accept II K xvi 13b-16 as 
authentic history and are prepared to dismiss II K xvmi 17ff. as a 
late legendary account, which has no historic worth.” Other scholars 
can not allow themselves to discredit I] K xvi 17ff. completely, 
and therefore assume that II K xvin 17ff. is a late account based 
on historic sources into which many legendary elements have been 
incorporated. 

There are many scholars, however, who see no necessity of accept- 
ing either conclusion, because they do not accept the premise upon 
which both are based. They are not ready to admit that there is a 
conflict between II K xvi 13b-16 and II K xvm 17ff. They 
do not regard the two accounts as two versions of the same story. 
They believe, instead, that the latter is a sequel to the former.” The 
fact that there is an Assyrian parallel to the former, and not to the 
latter, is no indication that the latter does not describe historical 
happenings. Since the purpose of the Assyrian annalist was to 
transmit to posterity the story of the glorious achievements of the 


A Critical Source Study 4] 


king, it was only natural for him to pass over in silence all efforts 
of the king which were unsuccessful.” If during the first part of the 
campaign the king met with a number of signal successes, it would 
have been much more psychological to describe the first part as if it 
were the whole, than to omit all mention of the third campaign be- 
cause of its unsuccessful outcome. In the first chapter, in the 
analysis of the Assyrian annals, it has been shown that the nature 
of the annals is such as to give rise to the suspicion that they do not 
tell the whole story, that there is something that they are trying to 
cover up. This suspicion, naturally, confirms the last mentioned 
theory. Scholars to whom this theory does not appeal, can object 
that this suspicion would never have arisen from an examination 
of the Assyrian story, if the examiner had not been acquainted with 
the Hebrew account and had not been influenced by the desire to 
harmonize one with the other. Scholars who accept this theory 
necesssarily assume that Sennacherib was very successful during the 
first part of the campaign, but that subsequent to these successes, 
something happened which caused the campaign to culminate in 
failure. 

There are some scholars who agree that If K xvi 13b-16 and 
II K xvi 17ff. refer to different episodes of Sennacherib’s campaign, 
but instead of assuming that the latter is a sequel to the former, they 
assume that the former is a sequel to the latter.” Mention has already 
been made of the difficulty of explaining the demand of Sennacherib 
for the surrender of Jerusalem, after he had agreed to accept tribute 
from Hezekiah. Those scholars who reverse the order of the two 
accounts escape this difficulty. They assume that after Sennacherib’s 
success in the Maritime Plain, he tried to capture Jerusalem, and that 
while he was besieging Jerusalem, he devastated the entire country of 
Judea. Before he was able to obtain the coveted prize, however, he 
found himself, for one reason or another,” in a position where it 
was not possible for him to continue the siege. Consequently, he 
agreed to accept tribute and to raise the siege of the city (something 
which he would not have done had he been a free agent). Accord- 
ingly, Sennacherib’s campaign may be regarded as a failure, to the 
extent that he did not carry out one of his objectives, and a success 
from the point of view of his having punished severely all the rebels 
(including Hezekiah), and of his having taught them in the charac- 


42 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


teristic drastic Assyrian manner that it does not pay to attempt to 
throw off the Assyrian yoke. 

There is a third group of scholars, who agree with the first, that 
it is not possible to reconcile If’ K xvi 13b-16 and If K xvm 
17ff., but who find in II K xvim 17ff. evidence that it is based on 
authentic historic sources. Consequently, they conclude that the 
two accounts do not refer to the same events, and advocate the hypo- 
thesis that there were two campaigns of Sennacherib—one in 701, 
which was in every way successful and which is described in II K 
xvi 13b-16 and the Assyrian annals; and another in the latter part 
of Sennacherib’s reign, which was a complete failure.” This second 
campaign they believe to be*described in II K xvi 17ff., Isaiah 
xxxvi 2ff..“ Herodotus II 141. They believe that there is no 
Assyrian counterpart to these records.” 

In view of the fact that the scholars in each group disagree among 
themselves concerning important aspects of the theory which they 
advocate, because of differences in their conclusions concerning some 
of the problems presented by II K xvint 17ff. (1 xxxvr 2ff.), it is 
necessary to defer further discussion of these theories until an ana- 


lysis of If K xvint 17if. shall have been made. 


2. Il K XVIII 17—XIX 37; Isaiah XXXVI 2—XXXVII 36. 
CHK AVIS ts DA eee 


PrositeM [.—What is the character of the source or sources from 
which II K XVII \7ff. and the corresponding version in 


the book of Isaiah have been derived? 


It is not possible to give a definite answer to this question. There 
is a wide range of possibilities. 

The traditional view has for a long time been that Isaiah was the 
author of CH. XXXVI-XxXIXx,” and that the editor of the Book of Kings 
embodied this Isianic narrative into his own, in order to elaborate 
his account of Hezekiah’s reign.” If this view is correct, then the 
source value of these chapters (and the corresponding chapters in 
Kings) is very great, because they are assumed to be written not only 
by a contemporary,” but by one who played an important role in 
the events described and was familiar with all the details of the 
situation. There is no evidence, however, to substantiate the assump- 


a 





A Critical Source Study 43 


tion that Isaiah was the author of CH. XXXVI-XxxIx.” Prior to the 
critical analysis of Biblical Literature, it may have been natural to 
assume that al] chapters of the Book of Isaiah were written by Isaiah. 
Our present knowledge of the process, whereby the Book of Isaiah 
was edited and re-edited, although necessarily hypothetical in char- 
acter, is based on a suthciently careful scrutiny of the text and on 
sufliciently well accepted principles of literary criticism to make such 
a naive assumption untenable. 

If we assume that the Biblical account (11 K xvi 17ff.) is not 
a primary account, it is important to discover the original source 
from which it is derived. There are some scholars who believe that 
the original account was written shortly after the events described, 
by a contemporary, perhaps by Isaiah himself. If so, the authen- 
ticity of the Biblical text depends upon the degree of correspondence 
existing between the Biblical text and the original account. Those 
scholars who believe that the Kings and Isianic rescensions were de- 
rived independently, must necessarily assume that the writers of both 
rescensions adhered faithfully to the text upon which they are based, 
because otherwise it would not be possible to account for the close 
correspondence existing between the two rescensions. If one re- 
scension, however, was based on the original document. and the other 
derived from the first (either Kings from Isaiah, or vice versa), it is 
not possible to determine the authenticity of the Biblical account, 
because it depends upon the freedom with which the original account 
was used by the writer of the first rescension, and there is no way of 
ascertaining the degree of that freedom. Similarly, if the two re- 
scensions were derived independently, but not directly from the origi- 
nal account, the historicity of the Biblical rescensions is uncertain, 
because it is possible to suspect that the intermediate rescension con- 
tained deviations from the original—either unconscious inaccuracies, 
or the deliberate inclusion of new material legendary in character— 
the accumulated results of the sins, conscious and unconscious, com- 
mitted by writers of earlier rescensions.” 

There are other scholars who believe that the original account 
from which the Biblical rescensions are derived was a late unhis- 
torical composition. Accordingly, it follows that the Biblical ac- 
count, which is based on it, is not historically trustworthy. 

Some scholars question the premise that the original was an 


44 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


historic document. They believe that II K xvmi 17—xx 19 
(Isaiah xxxvI—xxxIx) is either an excerpt from a biography of 
Isaiah or an adaptation of a part of such a biography. The assump- 
tion that biographies of prophets were in vogue is a theory which 
is generally accepted. In the case of Isaiah, this theory is supported 
by the presence in the book of Isaiah of other biographic material 
dealing with different stages of his career.“ If we accept this hy- 
pothesis, then the historic value of the Biblical account which we are 
examining depends upon the date of composition, the authenticity 
of the sources used by Isaiah’s biographer, and the freedom with 
which he used them. 

There are some scholars, who believe that the biography of Isaiah 
must have been a late legendary work similar in character to the 
biographies of Elijah and Elisha, from which the stories concerning 
these prophets contained in our present book of Kings are derived. 
There are other scholars who believe that the biography may have 
been prepared by a disciple of Isaiah, who was a contemporary 
and familiar with the events described. Other scholars differentiate 
between CHS. vil and xx on the one hand, and CHS. XxXVI—XXXIX on 
the other.” In the former, they see a representation of the historic 
Isaiah, and in the latter they see embodied a conception of the 
prophet, which could have developed only long after the true his- 
toric personality had been forgotten. CH. vi and vill seem to in- 
dicate that Isaiah kept memoirs. It is very possible that CH. vit is 
based on excerpts from these autobiographic memoirs, which have 
been modified and recast by an editor, who wished to present the in- 
terview between Ahaz and Isaiah during the Syro-Ephraimitic crisis 
in historic setting. CH. xx, too, they believe to be a biographic 
chapter based on the memoirs, or else taken from a biography which 
was prepared on the basis of Isaiah’s memoirs. Meinhold agrees 
with this view, but instead of assuming that the whole of the historic 
appendix (I. xxxvi-xxxIx) was based on a late work, he differen- 
tiates between xxxvi1 2—xxxvit 8 and the rest of the historic 
appendix. He believes that the former is derived from an authentic 
reliable source, and the latter from a late legendary work, whose 
author conceived Isaiah as an omniscient miracle worker, and lacked 
insight into the true character of the prophet Isaiah. This brings 
us to our next problem. 


A Critical Source Study 45 


Prosiem II—/s J] K XVIII 17—X1X 37 Usaiah XXXVI 2— 
XXXVII 38) derived from one source, or is it a composite 
derived from many sources? 


There is considerable difference of opinion in regard to this ques- 
tion. There are a few scholars who believe that I] K xvi 17-x1x 
37 is a continuous uniform account of Sennacherib’s invasion.” 
There are others who believe that If K xvi 17-x1x 37 contains 
two parallel” accounts of the same event, and there are still others 
who go even further and maintain that this portion contains two 
accounts of independent distinct events. 

The chief reasons for suspecting that II K xvi 17-x1x-37 is of 
diversified origin are:” 

1: It is hard to understand how Sennacherib could have expected 
to persuade the Jews to surrender Jerusalem by means of a letter,” 
when his personal ambassadors had failed to do so by means of a 
display of force.” 

2: The prophecies of Isaiah upon the receipt of Sennacherib’s 
letter do not correspond with his former prophecy, which he de- 
livered at the time that Rabshakeh had come with his insolent de- 
mands.” The prophecies, it is true, do not contradict one another; 
nevertheless, they do not give the impression that they were delivered 
within a short period of time, one after the other. Moreover, the 
absence of all reference in the supposedly later prophecies to the 
earlier one is very unnatural. 

3: Although it is not explicitly stated, there is a definite im- 
plication that as a result of Isaiah’s first prophecy, Hezekiah had 
become reassured and had regained sufficient courage to refuse Rab- 
shakeh’s demands for the surrender of Jerusalem. Why, under such 
circumstances, should Sennacherib’s letter have again frightened 
Hezekiah and again left him panic stricken? 

4: The sequence of events in the first part of the story is so 
similar to the sequence in the second part, that there is room for 
the suspicion that If K xvim 17—x1x 37 does not represent one 
story of two series of events, but a duplicate version of one series 
of events. 


embassy | 


.to demand the surrender of 


a: Sennacherib sends an 
letter | 


46 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


Jerusalem. 
II K xvui 17 : WoK xme9 
I xxxvi 2 : I xxxvu 9 


b: The Assyrians present an argument calculated to convince 
the Judeans that there is no hope of their preventing the 


fall of Jerusalem. 


Il K xvi 19-25, 29-35 : II K xix 10-13 
I xxxvi 4-10, 14-20 : I xxxvu 10-13 
ec: Hezekiah becomes panic stricken. 
Il K xix 1 II K x1x 14-19 (Implied in Heze- 
I xxxvn 1 : I xxxvu 14-20 kiah’s prayer.) 
d: Hezekiah seeks Divine intercession: 
Il K xrx 2-5 II] K xix 14-19 
I xxxvi 2-5 : I xxxvu 14-20 
(Isaiah is asked to serve (Hezekiah appeals to 
as an intermediary.) God directly.) 


e: Isaiah gives a reassuring Prophecy. 
LKR Orr, : II] K xix (20-31) ; 32-34. 
I xxxvu 6, 7 : I xxxvn (21-32) ; 33-35. 


f: The Crisis ends—Isaiah’s Prophecy is confirmed. 


DAIS xix Das o0-8-75. IT) Kixaxessa 
I xxxvir 9a; 37-38 I xxxvut 36 


Scholars who believe that If K xvi 17-x1x 37 is composed of 
two elements, either parallel versions of the same story or else ac- 


counts of two different events, do not agree among themselves con- 
cerning the manner of dividing the Biblical text. Some follow 
Stade“ and end the first account in the middle of verse 9, and start 
the second account with 9b. Others draw the line of division at the 
end of v.8.° There is also a difference of opinion in regard to 
Il K xix 36f. Since these verses represent a fulfillment of the 
second part of the prophecy contained in v.7, and form a fitting con- 
clusion to the first account, and since the completeness of the second 
account is not impaired if these verses are omitted, there are many 
scholars who are inclined to regard these verses as part of the first 


A Critical Source Study 47 


account. There are many scholars, however, who are not ready to 
concur with this view. 

It will be shown subsequently that those who believe that there 
were two campaigns assume that the reference to Tirhakah’s advance 
is to an episode of the second campaign rather than the first. Con- 


sequently, if 9a belongs to the first account, this account must be 
regarded as a source for the second campaign rather than for the 
first, whereas, if 9a should be assigned to the second account, then 
it is possible to ascribe the first account to the first campaign and to 
limit the description of the second campaign to II K xix Off. 
Similarly, for those who argue that vv. 36 and 37 imply that the 
death of Sennacherib took place shortly after the events described 
in the document of which they are a part, and therefore tend to in- 
terpret that document as referring to a second campaign, it is an 
important matter whether the first or the second account is to be 
regarded as the document in question. 

There is one more element that we need to consider—the second 
prophecy of I[saiah (II K xix 21-31, I xxxvm 22-32). Most 
scholars (those who regard If K xvin 17-x1x 37 as a composite 
as well as those who do not) agree that II K x1x 21-31 seems to be 
a separate element. This fact was emphatically indicated by Stade 
in his famous analysis (1886). In support of his contention, Stade 
presents four arguments. In the first place, he believes that the 
poetic form of this prophecy indicates that it is not a natural con- 
tinuation of II K xix 20. In the second place, the prophecy in 
II K xix 32-34 is out of place after the granting of the sign 
(vv.29ff.). In the third place, the prophecy seems to imply that 
Sennacherib’s message had been transmitted to Sennacherib orally, 
while in accordance with IJ K xix 14, it had been transmitted by 
means of a letter. Finally, Stade does not believe that this oracle is 
Isianic. He interprets v.24 to imply a conquest of Egypt. During 
Sennacherib’s reign no Assyrian army had come to Egypt; conse- 
quently, if his interpretation is correct, this oracle could not have 
been delivered earlier than 671, when Essarbaddon’s conquest of 
Egypt took place.” Moreover, Stade assumes that the theological 
views expressed in this oracle are more in the spirit of Deutero— 
Isaiah, than of Isaiah the son of Amoz, who lived in the Eighth Cen- 


AS Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


tury B. C. E. There are many scholars who disagree with the last 
contention of Stade,’ but who accept the other three. 

For the sake of greater convenience in the rest of this study, the 
various elements of which II K XVIII 13—XIX 37 is supposed to 
be composed, will be designated by the letters A.’ By; Ca Die 


following manner: 


1: IDK xvm 13? (I xxxv1 1?) IIL K xvin 14-16........ A 
2: JI K xvmr 13? (I xxxvi 1?) WK xvi 17— 
xix 6 (CD XXNVE 2—-XXXVIT OG) ac pees. oe nee B 
II K xvii 9a? (I xxxvu 9a?) II K xix 36-37? 
(TERRE VIE SSB LITe u teeng e etten oaete te 
3: II K xix 9a? (1 xxxvir9a?) 11 K xix 9b-20 
CL SXXVIT OD- 2.1 ba vic hey Se aes yee C 
II K xrx 32-35 (I xxxvu-33-36) II K xrx 36-37? 
(IX RX VIE OTB 8 6) As ae) ale ada 
42° TDK sxax 21b* 31) exikvir 225-52) oe ee D 


I] K xvi 13 (J xxxvi 1) will be regarded as part of A or B 
in accordance with the view presented. Similarly I] K xix Qa, 
30-37 (I xxxvi 9a, 37-38) will be regarded as part of B or C.in 
accordance with the view presented. 


Pros_EM III.—What is the Source Value of II K XVIII 17— 
XIX 31 (BC) ? 

As has already been indicated, some scholars recognize both 
B and C as trustworthy and authentic. They do not admit that 
there is any conflict between BC and A, or between BC and the 
annals. They believe that BC and A represent different stages of 
the same campaign. The silence of the Assyrian annals concerning 
that part of the campaign which is described in BC they interpret 
as a deliberate attempt on the part of the annalist to cover up the 
ultimate failure of the Assyrian enterprise by describing the early 
part of the campaign, in which Sennacherib met with temporary 
success, as if it were the whole. 

It has also been pointed out, that some scholars believe that 
between A and the Assyrian annals on the one hand, and BC on the 


A Critical Source Study 49 


other, there is an irreconcilable disparity. In accordance with the 
former, Sennacherib’s campaign was a successful one, and as a result 
of it, Judah was left in a terribly devastated condition; and although 
Hezekiah was allowed to remain on his throne, the greater part of 
the kingdom had been taken away from him and added to the petty 
Philistine kingdoms of Ekron, Ashkelon and Gaza.” In accordance 
with the latter, Sennacherib’s campaign was a tremendous failure; 
his army was completely destroyed (by a plague), and he himself 
was compelled to return to Assyria, without having accomplished 
the object of his expedition—Zion had proved to be invincible. Con- 
sequently, these scholars conclude that A and the account of the 
campaign in the Assyrian inscriptions are authentic sources, and that 
BC is a lengendary tale which possesses no historic value. 


The chief difficulty with the above assumption is that it is difficult 
to believe that a legend of the nature of BC would evolve without a 
basis in historic fact. An insignificant victory might be embellished 
through legend and eventually be recorded in history as a magnificent 
victory, but an overwhelming defeat such as is implied in the Assyrian 
description of Hezekiah’s humiliation, can hardly” become modified 
through a legend in such a manner as to be regarded as a triumph 
culminating in the complete destruction of the Assyrian army. 

Other scholars, starting out with the assumption that it is impos- 
sible to harmonize BC with A or the Assyrian annals, but believing 
that it is impossible for a legend to develop ex nihilo, conclude that 
B and C represent authentic accounts of actual historic occurrences, 
but not of occurrences that took place during the campaign that is 
described in A or in the Assyrian annals. Consequently, they 
assume a second campaign during the latter part of Hezekiah’s reign. 

It is also possible to differentiate between B and C—to accept the 
former as authentic and to deny historicity to the latter. It has been 
suggested above that there is reason to believe that B and C are 
parallel versions of the same story. If so, the former may be an 
account prepared on the basis of bona fide sources, and the latter 
represent a legendary embellishment of the former. The historicity 
of B can be defended on the following grounds: 


1. B contains no supernatural elements. Isaiah’s prophecy 
that Sennacherib would return to Assyria without attaining his 


20 


Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


specific objective (Jerusalem) may be explained as an expres- 
sion of confidence on his part in the inviolability of Zion, and 
of his supreme faith that Sennacherib’s plans would be frustrated 
by Divine intervention. Furthermore, it is not an unnatural 
assumption to make, that Isaiah was conscious of unrest in 
Babylonia (or of Egyptian preparations to send a second army 
into Palestine, or of both). Accordingly, if Isaiah believed that 
Sennacherib would not succeed in capturing Jerusalem, he would 
very naturally have assumed that it was the Divine plan that 
rumors of this unrest in Babylonia (or of the Egyptian advance, 
or of both simultaneously) should reach Sennacherib, in time 
to compel him to raise the siege of the city and to make a hur- 
ried retreat to Assyria. The specific prediction in 7b” is not 
as easy to rationalize, particularly since this prediction con- 
forms so accurately to the actual historic occurrence. The 
simplest way of escaping the difficulty presented by 7b to those 
who believe that there is no attempt in B to picture Isaiah as 
omniscient, is to assume that 7b was not part of the original 
prophecy, but that it is a gloss influenced by the circumstances 
of Sennacherib’s death. Another difficulty presented by this 
prophecy of Isaiah is that it does not harmonize with Is. xIv 
25” and other passages in Isaiah of similar import. This dif- 
ficulty does not exist for those scholars who assume that B 
describes Sennacherib’s first campaign, and that the anti- 
Assyrian oracles in the book of Isaiah were delivered during 
the supposed second campaign. 

2. B contains a number of very definite and specific refer- 
ences, which are presumably accurate. 

(a) If K xvmt 17 implies that Sennacherib’s headquarters 
were at Lachish. This fact seems to be confirmed by the 
Assyrian bas-relief and by the reference in A to Lachish, as the 
place to which Hezekiah sent his ambassadors to proffer his 
submission. If the Lachish bas-relief refers to the capture of 
Lachish during the first campaign, it is hard to account for 
Sennacherib’s failure to mention Lachish amongst the cities 
captured, if he considered the event important enough to have 
a bas-relief made. Those scholars, who believe that B is a 
description of a second campaign of Sennacherib in Palestine, 


A Critical Source Study ol 


can assume that the bas-relief was made during the second 
campaign. Accordingly, the reference to Lachish in v.14 must 


be assumed to be a gloss influenced by the reference to Lachish 
in v.17. 


(b) The Judeans appointed to negotiate with the Assyrian 
ambassadors are mentioned by name. Two of the three names 
mentioned are confirmed by Isaiah xxi 15-25. In that oracle, 
Shebna occupies the position attributed to Eliakim in II K 
xvii 18 and Isaiah is anticipating Shebna’s demotion and 
Eliakim’s promotion. If these two men represented opposing 
parties, and if Shebna’s removal from the Prime-ministry 
implied that his party had been discredited, his continuing in 
office in a subordinate position, during the administration of 
his rival, seems strange—yet it was by no means impossible, 
as is indicated by numerous historical analogies. 

(c) The definiteness of the allusions in x1x 8 also seem 
to indicate that the writer of B had access to sources containing 
very specific information.” 


The historicity of B has been questioned on account of the refer- 
ence to Tirhakah (9a). Those scholars, who believe that 9a is not 
a part of B, are not concerned with this problem, when investigating 
the historicity of Bb. Those scholars, who believe that B refers to a 
second campaign by Sennacherib and not to his first are not at all 
troubled by the allusion to Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia. On the 
contrary, they can argue that the specific reference is another indica- 
tion that the writer of B had before him authentic sources. But, 
even those scholars who believe that B refers to the first campaign 
and who regard 9a as a part of B, are not very much troubled by 
this reference, because from our knowledge of Egyptian history, we 
know that it would have been possible for Tirhakah to head an 
Egyptian army during the reign of his uncle, Shabaka. The fact 
that Tirhakah is referred to as King of Ethiopia, although he did 
not receive the title until about thirteen years later, is not strange. 
It would have been very natural for a writer living during or after 
the period when Tirhakah was King of Ethiopia to ascribe the title 
to him, even when referring to an event that had taken place before 
his accession to the throne.” 


52 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


A more serious basis for questioning the historicity of B is 
furnished by Rabshakeh’s addresses. Many scholars are inclined to 
question the genuineness of the speeches attributed to Rabshakeh. 
If B is an accurate and authentic source, then Rabshakeh’s speeches 
must be genuine or else based on an accurate description of the 
original, yet there are elements which seem to be doubtful. 

For the sake of greater clarity, I will analyze the speech and point 
the elements which seem to indicate genuiness and the elements which 
arouse suspicion. 


7 

v.19. The reference to Sennacherib as the great King, the 
King of Assyria, sounds very genuine. If the speech was 
composed by a Hebrew writer, he must have been familiar 
with the Assyrian forms of address. 

v.20, 21. The phrase pin yin npn naywn Sy 18 very 
suspicious (Cf. Ez. xx1x 6).” The similarity with Isaiah’s 
similes is also striking. The argument, however, is a very 
natural one for the Assyrian ambassador to have used, for he 
was probably aware that the main cause that had inspired the 
Palestinians to rebellion was the hope of assistance from Egypt. 
On the other hand, it would have been very tempting for a 
Hebrew writer familiar with Isaiah’s anti-Egyptian prophecies 
to attribute this argument to the Assyrian. 


v.22. This verse has been a bone of contention for a long 
time. Those who doubt the historicity of the description of 
Hezekiah’s reforms” or who assume that Hezekiah’s reforms 
took place after 701” can not believe that Rabshakeh made 
such a statement in 701. On the other hand, if the reforms had 
taken place, and if an Assyrian had learned about them, it would 
have been natural for him to argue in this manner. If the 
reforms had not taken place, and consequently this argument 
was not part of the original speech, the Hebrew composer must 
be credited with a very vivid imagination to have so accurately 
portrayed how an Assyrian would have behaved under such 
circumstances. There can be no doubt, that the Assyrian would 
have been quick to perceive the reaction of the people to a 
decree calling for the discontinuance of religious institutions, 
hallowed by centuries of use, and would have played upon 





A Critical Source Study 53 


their religious sentiments, in order to further his own ends.” 

v.23, 24. This sounds very genuine. It is interesting to 
compare Isaiah’s taunts in regard to Judah’s weakness in cavalry 
and its dependence on Egypt for the same.” 

v.25. Could Rabshakeh have said this? It is very doubtful 
It was possible for Isaiah to have regarded Assyria as the “rod 
of His anger,” but it is not likely that the Assyrian could have 
conceived himself as having been sent by the God of Judah.” 

[v.26, 27.|" The anxiety of the Hebrew ambassadors to use 
a language which the people on the wall should not understand 
is too vividly portrayed to be regarded as imaginative. Never- 
theless, the historicity of these verses has been questioned. 
Some scholars have taken for granted that Aramaic had not 
become the language of intercommunication in Western Asia 
as early as the 8th century; but, during the German excavations 
at Assur, there was found an Aramaic inscription which was 
written in the 8th century B.C.E.“ This inscription proves that 
the process which culminated in the complete Aramaization of 
Western Asia had its beginnings as early as the 8th century 
B.C.E., and therefore removes the ground for suspicion that 
v.26 is an anachronism. Another ground for the assumption 
that vv.26 and 27 were written at a late date is the fact that the 
language of Judah is referred to as) pyqyps Some scholars 
believe that it would not have been natural for the language of 
the people of Judah to be designated as pyqyq»_~—sttwenty ‘years 
after the destruction of Samaria. They therefore infer that 
this passage must have been written at a late date. It is not 
necessary to draw this inference, because the assumption upon 
which it is based is not warranted—the language of Judah 
might have been called ps syns even while the Northern 
Kingdom was still in existence. 

[v.28.| The attempt to incite the people against their King 
sounds very genuine. If imaginative, the writer must have 
been very familiar with Assyrian policies, methods and customs. 

v.29-32. The threat of deportation, even when toned down 
by holding out the land to which they would be deported as a 


land of promise, sounds very unnatural™ in an attempt to win 
over to himself the loyalty of the people. 


24 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


v.33-35. This is the argument which we would naturally 
expect from an Assyrian; but if the speech has not been recon- 
structed by a later writer, if it is a reproduction of the actual 
speech given by Rabshakeh, the references to cities conquered 
as far back as 740 appear strange. A reference to Sargon’s 
conquests would have been much more natural—or else, the 
argument might have centered around the two important King- 
doms of Damascus and Samaria. The most effective argument 
for the Assyrian to have used, would have been the destruction 
of Samaria; for the Assyrians probably knew that the two 
kingdoms worshipped the same God, and from the Assyrian 
point of view, it would have been a very logical inference that 
just as the God of the Hebrews was unable to save Samaria, so 
He would be unable to save Jerusalem.” 

v.36. If this speech was not based on authentic sources, but 
is the product of the imagination of a Hebrew writer, then the 
writer must have been a truly great artist.” 


From the above analysis, it appears that the addresses in their 
present form may contain elements which were not present in the 
original, but that these addresses are not entirely imaginary, that 
they are based on speeches actually delivered under historic circum- 
stances similar to those described. The simplest way of accounting 
for the present form of these addresses is to assume that the writer 
of B elaborated a summary of the original (which may have come 
down to him orally, or in a written document) and that to this 
elaboration were added the further elaborations of later writers. 


The historicity of C has been impugned on the following grounds: 

1. The parallelism between C and B. 

2. Many scholars believe that the prayer of Hezekiah contains 
conceptions which reflect a much later age than that of Hezekiah. 
The historicity of this prayer has also been questioned, because of 
the allusion in v.17 to an Assyrian practice of burning the gods of 
conquered peoples. In none of the Assyrian inscription is there any 
reference to such an act. If it is true that the Assyrians were never 
guilty of burning gods, could a contemporary have assumed that 
they had? Is it not much more natural to attribute such an assump- 
tion to a later writer, whose knowledge of Assyrian custom and 


—OO 


A Critical Source Study 35 


practice was not based on personal experience? Even if we grant 
this contention, it is not necessary to admit that they prove that C 
is a later composition. We may assume that C originally contained 
a statement that Hezekiah prayed, and that the actual prayer was not 
given, and that vv.15b-19 represent the elaboration of a later writer. 

3. The omniscience of Isaiah. In B a delegation is sent to Isaiah 
to inform him concerning the insolent message of Sennacherib. In 
C Isaiah seems to know what happened without being informed. 
V.20 seems to imply that Isaiah became aware of the situation 
through God, who heard Hezekiah’s prayer. (I deliberately used the 
word seems, because it does not necessarily imply that.) Isaiah may 
have been informed concerning the letter and its contents, as well as 
of Hezekiah’s action subsequent to the receipt of the letter. It may 
be assumed that v.20a was intended to imply nothing more than that 
Isaiah took the initiative and delivered his message to Hezekiah 
before the latter consulted him, and that the rest of the verse repre- 
sents the actual language employed by Isaiah. 

4. The story of the plague is contradictory and exaggerated. 
There are some scholars, who doubt the entire story concerning the 
plague. They believe that it is a legend of late origin. If this is 
so, then there is no doubt that C is an unreliable tale of little or no 
historic worth. But how can this assumption be established? Do 
not most scholars arrive at this conclusion through an opposite 
process? They start out with the assumption that C is unreliable, 
and therefore conclude that the story of the plague is unhistorical. 
We are confronted once more with a vicious circle. 

A very valid reason, for assuming that the story of the plague 
has a true historic basis, is the fact that independently, Herodotus 
records (IJ 141) an Egyptian story of a sudden catastrophe befalling 
Sennacherib’s army. The Egyptian story contains many legendary 
elements and inaccuracies. It also differs from the Hebrew story 
in several respects—but the similarity between Herodotus II 141 
and C is too striking not to make tempting the assumption that one 
confirms the historicity of the other. Whether or not we are war- 
ranted in making this assumption is the crux of our problem. It is 
therefore worth while to stop for a moment to examine the account 
in Herodotus. 


96 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


“After him reigned the priest of Vulcan, whose name was 
Sethon. He held in no account and despised the military caste 
of the Egyptians, as not having need of their services; and 
accordingly, among other indignities, he took away their lands, 
to each of whom, under former kings, twelve chosen acres had 
been assigned. After this, Sennacherib, king of the Arabians 
and Assyrians, marched a large army against Egypt; whereupon 
the Egyptian warriors refused to assist him; and the priest, 
being reduced to a strait, entered the temple and bewailed before 
the image the calamities he was in danger of suffering. While he 
was lamenting, sleep fell upon him, and it appeared to him in a 
vision that the god stood by and encouraged him, assuring him 
that he should suffer nothing disagreeable in meeting the 
Arabian army, for he would himself send assistants to him. 
Confiding in this vision, he took with him such of the Egyptians 
as were willing to follow him, and encamped in Pelusium, for 
here the entrance into Egypt is; but none of the military caste 
followed him, but tradesmen, mechanics, and sutlers. When 
they arrived there, a number of field-mice, pouring in upon 
their enemies, devoured their quivers and their bows, and, more- 
over the handles of their shields; so that, on the next day, when 
they fled bereft of their arms, many of them fell; and to this 
day a stone statue of this king stands in the temple of Vulcan, 
with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to the following 
effect: “Whoever looks on me, let him revere the gods.’ ” (Hero- 

- dotus II 141, translated by H. Cary.) 


The following elements in the above account are worthy of note. 
1: The clash between Sennacherib and Egypt took place during an 
invasion of Egypt. 2: Sennacherib is referred to as King of the 
Arabians and Assyrians. 3: The name given for the king of Egypt 
is Sethon. 4: The king of Egypt did not have the backing of the 
army, and would not have had the courage to meet Sennacherib if 
not for the encouragement of the gods. 5: The two armies met at 
Pelusium. 6: Before the battle took place, Sennacherib’s army was 
beset by field-mice, who destroyed the Assyrian quivers, bows, and 
handles of the shields. Because of this calamity, the Assyrian soldiers 
were no match for the Egyptians and were badly routed. 8: In honor 


Es 


A Critical Source Study o7 


of this event, there was placed in the temple of Vulcan (Hephaestus) 
a statue of the King with a mouse in his hand. 

Element 1. There is no mention of an attempted invasion of 
Egypt on the part of Sennacherib, either in Sennacherib’s annals 
or in the Hebrew Scriptures. This does not indicate that the account 
in Herodotus has no historic basis. The omission in the Hebrew 
account can easily be understood. The Hebrew scribe, in all prob- 
ability sincerely believed that the catastrophe which befell Senna- 
cherib (regardless of the place of its occurrence) was the work of 
his God, Who was interested in thwarting Sennacherib in his attempt 
to capture Jerusalem. Accordingly, from the point of view of the 
Hebrew writer, Sennacherib’s advance toward Egypt had nothing 
to do with the matter, and consequently was no concern of his. If 
this advance to Egypt was a part of the campaign of 701, the silence 
of the Assyrian annals concerning this venture can only be explained 
as a deliberate attempt on the part of the annalist to represent an 
unsuccessful campaign as successful by describing in detail, those 
parts of the campaign which were attended by success, and omitting 
all reference to those enterprises which had an unsuccessful outcome. 
If this attempted invasion of Egypt was part of the same campaign 
that is referred to in the fragment describing Sennacherib’s defeat 
of the Arabic queen, then, the silence of the Assyrian inscriptions 
is not at all surprising. 

Element 2. Herodotus’ reference to Sennacherib as “King of the 
Arabians and Assyrians,” and to his army as “Arabian” has been 
regarded by some scholars as proof that Herodotus II 141 is derived 
from inaccurate, unreliable, legendary sources. If, as some scholars 
believe, the invasion described by Herodotus was an outgrowth of 
a successful campaign in Arabia, and if Sennacherib had been 
acknowledged as King by a number of Arabian tribes—and if this 
army contained a large Arabian contingent, Herodotus’ inaccuracies 
are explicable. Those scholars, who do not accept the hypothesis 
of a second campaign in the West, can not accept this explanation. 
On the other hand, the scholars who do advocate this hypothesis can 
regard Herodotus’ inaccurate designations as confirmations of their 
theory. Those scholars, who believe that there was only one cam- 
paign of Sennacherib in Palestine, and who consequently assume 
that the story told by Herodotus refers to the campaign of 701, must 


38 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


conclude that no significance is to be attached to Herodotus’ error 
in referring to Sennacherib as King of the Arabians and Assyrians. 
It is merely to be taken as an indication that in Herodotus’ age, 
the memory of Sennacherib was already vague and inaccurate. 

Element 3. The name of the King of Egypt is another indication 
that the story in its present form is encrusted with legendary material. 
Most scholars believe that the name of the king had become lost 
and that legend had associated the events with the famous Seti I 
(14th century B.C.E.). Hall® explains Herodotus’ error by the 
assumption that Tirhakah’s name was confused with that of Sethos 
because Tirhakah’s name is given by Manetho as “Zet.” Hall 
believes that the confusion of.“Zet” with Sethos was more natural 
because of the legendary connection of Sethos’ Palestinian wars with 
Pelusium. If Hall’s hypothesis is correct, then the name of the king 
is another indication that this account refers to an invasion which 
took place during the latter part of Sennacherib’s reign and not to 
the invasion of 701. 

Element 5. Those who believe that Herodotus and C describe the 
same event must harmonize the implication of the latter, that the 
catastrophe took place in Palestine during an invasion of Palestine 
and the explicit statement of the former, that the catastrophe took 
place at Pelusium, during an invasion of Egypt. It is important to 
note that the Biblical account states, “that the angel of the Lord 
went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians . . .” It does 
not state where that camp was situated. There is no reason for 
assuming that it was outside of the walls of Jerusalem. It may 
have been at Lachish or in the vicinity thereof, in the southern part 
of the Shephela,—or, while a small contingent was besieging (block- 
ading) Jerusalem, the main army may have advanced into Egypt, as 
far as Pelusium, in which case Herodotus may be correct in his 
statement that the calamity occurred in Pelusium, “which is the 
entrance into Egypt.” 

Element 6. Scholars agree that II K xrx 35 implies a pestilence.” 
Most scholars believe that the story of the mice told by Herodotus 
also implies a plague. Consequently, it is generally accepted that 
C and Herodotus II 141 represent the Hebrew and Egyptian versions 
of the same event. Since it can not be suspected that one was derived 
from or influenced by the other, the correspondence between the two 


A Critical Source Study 39 


is usually regarded as proof of the historicity of both accounts. It 
is important to keep in mind, however, that there is no mention of a 
plague in Herodotus II 141—that the assumption that a plague is 
implied is based on the identification of the mouse as a symbol of 
plague, and that this identification is hypothetical. 

Why is it usually assumed that the mouse is the symbol of plague? 
One of the great scourges of the Biblical World was the Bubonic 
Plague. It is possible that the ancients recognized that the mouse 
was the carrier of this terrible disease. There are Egyptologists, 
who believe that the Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol for pestilence 
and destruction was the mouse. This belief, however, is not shared 
by all Egyptologists. 

Those scholars, who believe that the mouse was generally accepted 
by the ancients as a symbol of pestilence, can present I S vi 4, 5 in 
support of their contention. The emerods and images of the mice are 
interpreted by many scholars as parallel symbols, both symbolic of 
the same thing—pestilence. This view is supported by IS v 6 where 
emerods alone are mentioned. On the other hand, I S vi 5, when 
interpreted naturally, implies a double scourge, and there is no 
reason why ONT AN oyn'nwn oD 7D2y should not be taken liter- 
ally instead of symbolically. 

There are many scholars, who believe that the mouse was a Greek 
symbol for plague. This belief is based on the fact that Apollo, 
when referred to in his capacity of “God of Pestilence” is given the 
epithet “Smintheus” (“god of mice,” “destroyer of mice’). What 
is more, there are several instances in Greek literature, when pesti- 
lence seems to be associated with mice. Prima facie, there seems 
to be sufficient evidence to prove the theory that the mouse was a 
Greek symbol for plague. Meinhold, however, denies this theory, 
and presents a convincing argument to the contrary.” Even if we 
assume that Meinhold is not correct, and if we grant that the mouse 
was a Greek symbol for pestilence, to interpret Herodotus’ story of 
the mice as a story of a plague on the strength of this fact, is to 
imply that this story has not only been given Greek coloring, but 
has been recast entirely in a Greek mold. If so, the historicity of 
the story becomes very questionable. 

The above analysis indicates that the best substantiation of the 
assumption that C and Herodotus II 141 correspond, that they both 


60 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


tell of a terrible plague, which broke forth in the Assyrian army 
and frustrated the Assyrian designs, is the theory that the mouse 
was an Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol for pestilence. The correctness 
of this theory is a question for Egyptologists to decide. 

6 and 8. There are several Greek legends of a deliverance result- 
ing from the nibbling by mice of the enemies’ weapons. The 
parallelism between these legends and Herodotus H 141 is too close 
to be co-incidental. Consequently, there are many scholars, who 
doubt the historicity of Herodotus’ tale. They believe, that whatever 
the story may have been that Herodotus heard from the Egyptian 
priests, he recast it completely in the mold of the Greek legend. 
If so, is it possible to discover the historic kernel, which this legend 
conceals? If C is historical, and a sudden pestilence broke forth. 
in the Assyrian army, might not the story of the pestilence have 
recalled in Herodotus’ mind, the old Greek tale concerning the mice? 
Such an assumption would appeal to those scholars who believe that 
the mouse was a Greek symbol for plague. 

The story of the statue allows a different assumption. It is possible 
that the statue which Herodotus saw, was not the statue of a King, 
as Herodotus mistakingly supposed, but that of the god Horus. If 
the Egyptians enjoyed an unexpected deliverance, it would have 
been natural for them to attribute it to the god Horus and to set up 
a statue in his honor. A mouse might have been put into the hand of 
the god, not because the mouse had any relation to the cause of the 
deliverance, but because the mouse was sacred to Horus. It would 
have been natural for Herodotus, upon seeing the statue, to assume 
that the mouse had symbolic significance, specifically related to the 
occasion which called for the making of that statue, and in the absence 
of definite information, to assume that there must have been an 
occurrence similar to that described in the old Greek tale. A more 
simple supposition might be made, that Herodotus, upon seeing the 
statue, was reminded of the passage in Homer,” where Apollo 
Smintheus is pictured as having a mouse in his hand, and by natural 
association, was reminded of the old Greek tale. These views give 
us no clue in regard to the true nature of the deliverance. It may 
have been caused by a sudden unexpected retreat upon the part of 
the Assyrians, due to unrest in Babylonia.” This interpretation will 
naturally be favored by those who accept the historicity of B and 





A Critical Source Study 61 


not of C. The chief objections to this interpretation are that it is 
not likely that the Egyptian priests, in the time of Herodotus, would 
have mistaken a statue of Horus for that of a King. Moreover, if 
there is no other reason for the mouse in the hand than that the mouse 
is sacred to the god (i.e. if there is no specific relation between the 
mouse and the occasion in honor of which the statue was made) 
there should have been many such statues in Egypt. Thus far, none 
has been found. 

If, as a result of the analysis of Herodotus II 141, we favor the 
view that it corroborates the story of the plague in C, then we must 
conclude that C represents authentic history. On the other hand, 
if we accept the view that there is no implication of a plague in 
Herodotus’ account, then we may conclude that Herodotus confirms 
B rather than C and there is room for the theory that C represents 
a parallel, unhistorical version of B. Those who believe that there 
were two campaigns, naturally associate Herodotus’ account with 
the second; consequently, from the point of view of these scholars, 
to identify B with Herodotus, implies that B refers to the second 
campaign. It is possible to deny the historicity of C and to assume 
that B and Herodotus refer to the same events, and at the same time, 
to interpret B as a sequel to A. To ascribe Herodotus to the cam- 
paign of 701 does not present more difficulty to the advocates of this 
theory than it does to those who believe that A, B and C represent 
three stages of the campaign of 701 respectively. 


ProBLEM IV. What is the relation existing between B and C 
and A, and between B C and A and the Assyrian Annals? 


From the analysis that has been made thus far, it is clear that a 
definite answer can not be given to the above question. A number 
of hypotheses are possible.” 


For the sake of greater clarity, | have arranged these hypotheses 
in accordance with the three answers given to the preceding problem. 


Sennacherib waged only one campaign in 
B and C _ both Palestine. 
J legendary tales ; 
which _ possess (Hypornesis I This campaign is described in its entirety 
no historic malay by A (II K XVIII 13-16) and the Assyrian 
(annals. 


62 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


Sennacherib waged only one campaign in 
f Palestine. 

A and the Assyrian Annals describe only 

the first stage of this campaign. 
HypotHesis II ; 
1B and C represent the second and third 
stages of that campaign respectively. There 
is no Assyrian counterpart to the story told 
by BC.” It is possible that Herodotus II 
[a refers to the last stage of this campaign. 


pee 





( Sennacherib waged two campaigns in 
Palestine. 





The first campaign is described in its 
entirety by A (II K XVIII 13-16) and the 
Assyrian annals. 





BrB and C_ both 
authentic accounts.~ 


IlypotueEsis III - 





The second campaign (an outgrowth of 
a campaign in Arabia) is described by BC. 
' E and C represent two stages of that cam- 





paign respectively. Herodotus II 141 prob- 
ably refers to the second stage of this 
campaign. 


(Sennacherib waged two campaigns in 


A and B represent two stages of that cam- 


paign. There is no Assyrian counterpart 


HypotHesis IV to Bu 


The second campaign is described by C 


Palestine. 
| The first campaign is described by A B. 
Pea Herodotus II 141. 


Sennachertb waged only one campaign in 


Palestine. 
This campaign is described by A B. A 
Hyroruesis V and B represent two stages of this cam- 


paign. There is no Assyrian counterpart 
to B.7 Herodotus II 141 refers to the 
second stage of this campaign. 





Sennachertb waged two campaigns in 
Palestine. 


Het is authentic 


C is legendary 


The first campaign is described in its 
Hyporuesis VI 4 entirety by A (II K XVIII 13-16) and the 
Assyrian annals. 


The second campaign is described Ly B 
and Herodotus II 141. 


B. II CHRONICLES XXXII 1-23. 


From a comparison of the account in Kings-Isaiah on the one 
hand, and Chronicles on the other, it is evident that the latter account 
is a free abridgment of the former and that the former was the 
chief source used. Since the primary purpose of the author of 
Chronicles when writing his history was to reveal through history 


A Critical Source Study 63 


that God rewards the virtuous and punishes the sinner, it is natural 
that the chronicler’s interest in Sennacherib’s campaign should be 
confined to those portions of the sources he used, which deal with 
God’s protection of the faithful Hezekiah. Consequently, there is 
nothing we can learn from that portion of the account in Chronicles, 
which is derived from Kings-Isaiah excepting the theological bias of 
the later writer, which is of no interest to us, from the point of view 
of this study. We can accordingly, limit our analysis of the account 
in Chronicles to vv.2-8, which deal with measures that Hezekiah 
took for the defense of Jerusalem, which are not described in the 


Book of Kings. 


ProBLEM I.—/s the account of the measures taken by Hezekiah to 
defend Jerusalem authentic? 


If it could be proved that the Chronicler derived his information 
from the state annals, then this question would have to be answered 
in the affirmative. From II K xx 20, we know that the annals did 
contain an account of how Hezekiah made a pool and conduit and 
brought water into the city. The question naturally arises whether 
the reference is to the same building achievement as is described in 
II Chr. xxxir 3f. If we assume that it is, and if we further assume 
that the Chronicler had a basis in his sources for the assertion that 
this enterprise was undertaken as a defense against Sennacherib, 
then it is logical to infer that the annals also contained a description 
of the other preparations made by Hezekiah to withstand a siege.” 

Against the assumption that If K xx 20 and II Chr. xxxm 3f. 
refer to the same undertaking, is the fact that the former refers to 
the building of a reservoir within the city, and the latter to the 
shutting off the water supply from the besiegers outside of the city- 
walls. There are scholars, who believe that the same engineering 
construction could have served both purposes. Hezekiah may have 
arranged for the gathering of the waters into the reservoir, which 
had been built within the city by shutting up a well outside of the 
city walls, and thereby provided an adequate water supply for the 
defenders within, and at the same time cut off the water supply 
from the besiegers without. This view is confirmed by the reference 
of Isaiah xxt 9b to “the gathering together of the waters of the 
lower pool.” Isaiah, like the Chronicler, is describing the measures 


64 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


taken by Hezekiah in preparation for the siege. They are therefore 
describing the same act, and yet, one speaks of the gathering together 
of the water, and the other of stopping all the fountains.” 

Whether or not II Chr. xxx 2-8 is derived from the annals, the 
authenticity of these verses seems to be vouched for by the cor- 
responding description in Isaiah xx 9-11. But there are some 
people who have so little faith in the historicity of Chronicles, that 
they might even be ready to assume that the Chronicler had no source 
at all for these verses excepting the implications of II K xx 20 and 
Isaiah xx1u1 9-11. To maintain that the Chronicler received his 
suggestion for the elaboration of II K xx 20 from Isaiah xxm 9-11 
is rather difficult because of .the contradiction between Isaiah XxII 
1lb and II Chr. xxxn 7, 8.% If we do not make this bold assump- 


tion, then the fact that both Isaiah and the Chronicler imply that - 


Hezekiah’s measures of defence were undertaken at the last moment, 
when the danger of Sennacherib’s attacking Jerusalem was very 
imminent, seems to indicate that the Chronicler’s account of Heze- 
kiah’s endeavor to strenethen the material defences of the city is 
based on trustworthy sources. 


Prosiem II.—At what time were the preparations to withstand a 
siege, described in II Chr. XXXII 2-8, made by 
Hezekiah? 

The implication of II Chronicles xxx 2f. is that they were 
made at the last minute. Since this verse seems to be confirmed 
by Isaiah xxu 9-11, there is reason to accept this implication. To 
do so, however, is difficult, because it forces us to unnatural conclu- 
sions in regard to Hezekiah’s administration. If, as is usually sup- 
posed, Hezekiah was one of the leading spirits in the revolt of the 
Palestinian states, how would it have been possible for him to have 
wilfully left Jerusalem unprotected until the danger of a siege had 
become very immediate ? 

Is it conceivable that Hezekiah did not deem it necessary to make 
preparation for defence, at the time that the policy of revolt was 
decided upon, because of his confidence that Sennacherib would 
never approach Jerusalem? It is possible to suppose, that it was 
the plan of the revolting states, as well as of Egypt, who had 
stimulated them to revolt, to meet Sennacherib in the North upon 


—_— —_ ee Eee 


A Critical Source Study 65 


his first entrance into Palestine.“ It is also likely that the Allies 
may have been very confident as to the result of such a meeting, 
and that Sennacherib’s advance into Palestine proper was regarded 
as a very remote possibility. Nevertheless, to assume that on the 
strength of such confidence Hezekiah wilfully neglected the defence 
of his capital, is to conceive Hezekiah as guilty of gross negligence 
of duty. There is nothing in our accounts to warrant such a bold 
assumption. We can escape the difficulty by assuming that Hezekiah 
did take measures to defend his capital, as soon as he decided upon 
the policy of revolt, but that as long as he was confident that 
Sennacherib’s advance would be checked in the north of Palestine, 
and as long as he looked upon an invasion of Jerusalem as some- 
thing very remote, these measures were but half measures, and the 
activity was carried on half heartedly, and that it was only when 
the Hebrews realized that a siege of Jerusalem was a very definite 
possibility, that they began to exert strenuous effort to defend their 
capital. When did that realization come about? After the battle 
of Eltekeh? It is not likely that after the battle of Eltekeh, when 
all the Palestinian states were in a panic stricken condition, that 
any state would harbor the thought of further resistance, if its 
capital was at that time in a defenceless condition, and if its very 
“wall was broken down.” 

If we assume that the plans for revolt were not made in 705 but 
in 702-701, it is possible to surmise that Sennacherib learned of the 
conspiracy that was being planned against him before it was fully 
hatched; that Sennacherib advanced into Palestine with remarkable 
speed and surprised his foes before they were fully ready.” Sim- 
ilarly, the advocates of the theory that Sennacherib waged two 
campaigns in Palestine can meet the difficulties presented by the 
implication of II Chr. xxx 2f. that Hezekiah’s measures of defence 
were undertaken at the last minute, by assuming that this second 
campaign was unexpected”; that Sennacherib’s advance into Palestine 
after having defeated the Arabs came as a surprise to Hezekiah.” 

As has already been indicated, there would be no advantage in 
subjecting the remaining portion of the account in Chronicles to 
analysis, but it might be advisable to enumerate the most important 
differences between the account in Chronicles and the corresponding 
passages in Kings. 


66 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


(a) V.la states that Sennacherib’s invasion took place after 
the Reformation of Hezekiah.” There is no indication in Kings 
in regard to the time when the Reformation took place, except 
Rabshakeh’s allusion to the removal of the high-places, which 
implies that the Reformation had taken place earlier.” 

(b) V.1b does not harmonize with II K xvi 13b. Did the 
Chronicler deliberately change the statement in the annals, (or 
the quotation in Kings), because he did not wish to admit that 
the pious Hezekiah had suffered a humiliation? It is not neces- 
sary to make such a serious accusation. It is very possible that 
Lachish was the first Judean city captured; and, if Sennacherib 
sent Rabshakeh to demand the surrender of Jerusalem while he 
was still besieging Lachish,” then, it is true that at the time that _ 
the events described by the Chronicler in vv2ff. took place, 
Sennacherib was only contemplating the capture of Judah’s 
forty-six walled cities—he had as yet not consummated his plans. 
Since the Chronicler does not state subsequently that these cities 
were captured, he must, under all circumstances, be held re- 
sponsible for not telling the whole story. It is necessary, how- 
ever, to differentiate between the sins of commission and 
omission. 

(c) Vv.9-19 represent a condensed summary of the arguments 
used by the Assyrians in trying to persuade Hezekiah to sur- 
render Jerusalem. The Chronicler combines into one, Rab- 
shakeh’s message to the Judean ambassadors (II K xvim 19-26) 
and Rabshakeh’s appeal to the populace on the wall (II K xvur 
29-35). He mentions the fact that Rabshakeh attempted to 
intimidate the defenders on the wall (v.18) but the manner 
in which he does it gives the impression that this attempt was 
a special episode. He does not mention, however, that Rab- 
shakeh had been requested to talk Aramaic, in order that the 
people may not understand the import of his remarks. This 
omission is consistent with the view that the Chronicler was 
careful not to introduce any element into his story, which 
would indicate that the Judeans had been reduced to straits, or 
that there was anxiety. 

Of all the arguments given by Rabshakeh, the Chronicler presents 
only the last, viz., that just as the gods of all the other nations had 





A Critical Source Study 67 


been able to save their peoples, so the God of Judah will not be 
able to save Jerusalem. It is possible that the Chronicler was im- 
pressed with the terrible blasphemy implied in the comparison of 
the God of Judah with the gods of the peoples whom Sennacherib 
had conquered.“ The explanation usually given is that the Chron- 
icler deliberately omitted Sennacherib’s references to their weakness 
in cavalry, and to the futility of their reliance upon Egypt; because, 
in the one case, he would have revealed Hezekiah’s military weakness 
(despite the elaborate preparations described in vv.2-8) and in the 
other, that the pious Hezekiah relied upon human assistance. 

There is a third possibility. This argument may represent the 
one actually given by Rabshakeh, and the others, imaginary elabora- 
tions on the part of B, or later additions. If C is a parallel version 
to B, then the faet that in C this is the only argument attributed to 
the Assyrians (summarized by the Chronicler in one verse 17b), is 
a confirmation of this theory. It would be difficult to maintain, 
however, that the Chronicler based his account, not on Kings, but 
upon a more primary source, because the language used by the 
Chronicler is in many instances, clearly a paraphrase of the language 
used by the authors of B and C. In order to defend this theory, it 
would be necessary to resort to the far-fetched assumption, that in 
addition to Kings, the Chronicler had before him a more authentic 
account of Rabshakeh’s addresses, and that he amended the text of 
Kings accordingly. The introduction of v.12, which has no logical 
connection with v.13, would then have to be regarded as an indica- 
tion that the argument mentioned in II K xvii 22 was one actually 
used by Rabshakeh; or else, that the Chronicler was not consistent 
in limiting himself to the version of Rabshakeh’s address, given in 
the supposedly more authentic source at his disposal. 


68 Notes to Chapter II 


1It is possible that a number of psalms were composed during this period. I have 
not included a discussion of any psalms, because the criteria used in determining the 
date of the different psalms, while sufficiently definite to enable us, in many instances 
to differentiate between pre-exilic, exilic, early post-exilic, and late post-exilic psalms, 
are too vague to warrant our assuming a specific date for a specific psalm. Further- 

more, even if we should take for granted that such psalms as XLVI and LXXVI 

(XLVII, XLVIII, LXXV) belong to the period with which we are concerned, (and 

there is not sufficient evidence to warrant our doing so), it would not be possible to 

make use of these psalms as source material, because the historic allusions are too 
ague. x A ° . 

. art is not possible to reconstruct the past, on the basis of this kind of evidence, 

with complete assurance that our reconstruction is correct, because we do not know 

the circumstances during which an address was delivered, or a document written, and 

we are compelled to resort to assumptions when trying to determine the date of a 

given prophecy. After an assumption has been made concerning the date, the 

prophetic source is interpreted in accordance with the assumed concomitant circum- 
stances. As a result of this dangerous method of drawing inferences, nothing can be 
established definitely, and all our conclusions, based on the unconscious evidence fur- 
nished by prophecy, must necessarily remain hypothetical in character. 

SFor a detailed comparative study of the two texts, see A. Kuenen—Prophets and 

Prophecy in Israel § 45-3. : 

+ Tee says important of these differences are as follows: 
1. There is nothing in Isaiah to torrespond to II K XVIII 14-16. 
2. II K XVIIi 17. In accordance with Isianic account, the king of Ashur 
sent Rabshakeh alone, whereas in accordance with Kings, he sent the 
Tartan and Ravsoris and Rabshakeh. The two accounts, when referring to 
the Assyrian embassy, consistently use the singular and plural respectively. 
3. I K XVIII 17 382393 19y7) O° 9wI7) 3821 19N11 missing in Isaiah 
4, II K XVIII 18 77% 98 3851) missing in Isaiah. 
BO IY PIT es PIN eee Lestat 
Tp ON paw Tay as ee eee 
6. Il K XVIII 34- Mypi yan missing in Isaiah. It is interesting to note 
that in I XXXVII 18 these are included. 
% II K XIX 17 O8S98 7 FS) 011357 DN whereas I XXXVII 18 
OsIN ~ AS) ison 55-7 AS 
8. II K XIX 20 YY missing in Isaiah. 
9. II K XIX 35 NAN 77172 17) missing in Isaiah. 

10. II°K XX 4 abridged in Isaiah. 

Ate tas Lis 5 M39 T!A3 the epithet applied to Hezekiah, missing in 

saiah. 

12. II K XX __ 5 abridged in Isaiah. 

13, IF KoXX 6 STAY. 3 JyIn7) | 13yiD9 i missine in Toate 0 Th eebieeeee 
is derived from II K XIX 34 (I XXXVII 85) it is important to note that 
Tike XX 6 is a more accurate reproduction than I XXXVIII 6. 

14, es a ie 7, 8 misplaced in the Isianic rescension. I XXXVIII 21, 22 
abridged. 

Lb hT 8, 0, considerably abridged in Isaiah. There is no reference 
in Isaiah to Hezekiah’s choice as to what the sign should be. 


16. There is nothing in Kings to correspond to I XXXVIII 9-20, the Psalm 
of Hezekiah. _ 


Be QL) Kart VIETL S82 


17. II K XX 18 YW whereas I XXXIX 2 MAHWY 
4The most important differences in spelling, grammatical construction, and the like, 
are as follows: ee 
1. II K XVIII 18° yo syn; whereas I XXXVI 1 YIINI omy 
2. II K XVIII 20 Aye “ IXXXVI 5 irspe 
8. II K XVIII 22 yy5xn “ I XXXVI 7 4pxp 


4. II K XVIII 25 AIM open Tee ek ee Wate Osta pon 
5. II K XVIII 27) peagp PS TD ove eee on -sn 
6. It K AVET 31 siya TD XXXVI 46 sows SR 
v. IK AVAIL 82. 45 oT eee Ve 1B 
8. I XXXVI 20 TNs. Oh Te a eg mbox - 555 
DS INA MOXA OS4NN 


ee K XVITT 88 ayy Awnny: “eT Gee Swot 
LO IE OK) TR Ae RAI INR | Te PISS TI yw 


PIS JA N73975 





Notes to Chapter II 69 


11. II K XIX 9 45» “« J XXXVII 9 5y 
12. II K XIX 12 3pny “ I XXXVIT 2122 inner 
8°30 KSI 1S ah “« I XXXVII 13 wR 


14. IT K XIX 14 9x p11 «I XXXVIT 14 AND 
(The reference is to 1359p It is necessary to note that both K and I 


wm eee 


agree in the use of 37% 5") .) 


18), JOR Re 16 9855 whereas I XXXVII 15 5x 
16. IT K XIX 16 ‘727 AN Oo OT SXEVIL UT. WHS i93. ie 
Meet he Sie as noe « I XXXVII 17 npby 
18. II K XIX 18 $373) So eT ee VIL 1S 1733 
19. II K XIX 28 415x859 “I XXXVII 24 4tay 
$6) 11 XIX 398 ( 393) ap5n =I XXXVII 24 353 
Dips L ok Lak 25 Ss Px3ah “« I XXXVIT 26 si Axan 
22. II K XIX 26 wa) “I XXXVII 27 yway 
23. II K XIX 26 7aTY “I XXXVIT 27 Aw 
94. 11 KR AIX 20 womb “ I XXXVII 30 pimp 
25. II K XIX 338 wn PL KAA VAL BEERS 
BO, Tic RIX © 87 il? Loko v tL eee vAts4 

9D N51 Dp 3193 
ay ig PRR ee, a, 8 2y9B- MN ap“ IT XXXVI 2 9935 yArptn 3p) 
oS. Il K AX 2  49N5 “ I XXXVI 3 sper 
29. II K XX 5S’ poypxi aiw ~~ I XXXVITI 45 papst 415m 
30. II K XX 12 yqn5a onda “I XXXIX 1 492 ss 
31. II K. XX ie. ye 35 pe fet hed 28 oP Pe ee | prow 
32. II K XX bk il aie bees ieee Ge. <6, @.¢ D. Garta yee 
33. II K XX 19 999 ADR Ape o1owcox xo whereas 

I XXXIX 8 7999 Mex ow AM 1D 


5These differences are very immportant as aids in determining the relation of the 
Kings rescension to the Isianic. In fact they furnish our only basis fromr which any 
conclusions can be drawn. 

8When comparing the two rescensions, one cannot limit himself to a comparison of 
II K XVIII 18—XIX 87 with Isaiah XXXVI and XXXVII, but must also compare 
II K XX 1-19 with Isaiah XXXVIII and XXXIX. Accordingly, in addition to the 
omission of II K XVIII 14-16 in the Isianic rescension, we must note the omission 
of Isaiah XXXVIII 9-22 in the Kings rescension, and also the abridged form in which 
the story of the sign II K XX 7-11 appears in Isaiah XXXVIII 7-8. 

(In enumerating the differences in the two rescensions in notes 3 and 4, I included 
a comparison of II K XX 1-19 with Isaiah XXXVIII and XXXIX). 

7That the king’s name was spelled differently in vv.14-16 than vv.13 and 17ff. 
was first noted by Kuenen (1875). Kuenen’s analysis has been generally accepted. 
I must confess, however, that it is not altogether convincing to me, because the dif- 
terentiation is not carried through consistently; ez., in XVIII 1 a chronological 
ncetice, corresponding in all probability to XVIII 18, the king’s name is spelled Mp 
(The spelling of the king’s name in vv. 9 and 10 harmonizes with Kuenen’s analysis). 

8There is nothing in the contents of vv. 14-16 to arouse suspicion; on the other 
hand, there are a number of things that seem to confirm the historicity of these 
versas—e. g., the reference to Lachish, the fact that the amount of tribute is stated 
specifically, (in accordance with Brandis, there is correspondence between the amount 
stated in v. 14 and that mentioned in the Assyrian annals. This assumption is not 
accepted by Sanda, because there is no evidence to prove that the Judean silver talent 
was equivalent to 22/3 Assyrian) and the admission that in order to meet Sennacherib’s 
exhorbitant demands, he had to empty out both the Royal and Temple Treasuries. 

There is one question which these verses bring to mind, and that is—could Hezekiah 
have raised such a large amount, even if he did empty both treasuries and strip the 
Temple of its ornaments, a short time after Ahaz had done the same thing? (cf. II K 
XVI 8, 17, 18). That Judah had regained some of its natural wealth is implied in 
v. 16b. and XX 18—(most scholars believe that the embassy of Merodach-Baladdin 
must have taken place some time before the events described in vv. 138-16). 

®*The basis for the latter alternative is the fact that the editor of the Book of 
Kings, when quoting his authority for the information derived from the Annals, refers 
to it as “the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” or ‘“‘the book of the 
Chronicles of the Kings of Israel’”’ or ‘‘the book of the Chronicles of the Acts of Solo- 
man.’ Some scholars, however, do not see the need of assuming that these books of 


70 Notes to Chapter II 


Chronicles were not the original books in which the official record was kept. 

10cf Fullerton—The Invasions of Sennacherib—Bibliotheca Sacra v. 63 p. 587. 

Jt must be taken for granted that the entry in the annals was made within a brief 
period after the events occurred. Consequently, if 715 is not the correct date for the 
accession of Hezekiah, it would not have been possible for a scribe describing an 
event that transpired in 701 to have assumed that it had taken place in the fourteenth 
year of Hezekiah’s reign. 

I wish to point out, however, that there are two ways of assigning 13a to the 
annals without accepting 715 as the correct date for the accession of Hezekiah. W. S. 
Auchincloss (Standard Chronology of the Hebrew Bible, 1914 p. 66f.) believes that 
727 is the correct date for Hezekiah’s accession, and at the same time accepts 18a as 
an accurate statement. He assumes that the fifteen years of Hezekiah’s life after his 
illness (II K XX 6) were regarded as a second term of office, and that as a result, 
events that transpired between 727 and 714 were dated 1-14 of King Hezekiah, and 
events that took place between 714 and 699 (698!) were dated 1-15. The second 
explanation is based on the assumption that v. 18a was originally an introduction to 
XX 12ff. instead of XVIII 13bff. Since Merodach-Baladdin’s ambassadors must 
have come to Hezekiah sometime before Sennacherib drove him out of Babylon, 
(Merodach-Baladdin, a fugitive in the marshes of Southern Mesopotamia, was hardly 
in a position to send embassies), it is very possible that the original position of Ch. 
XX was before XVIII 13—XIX 387 instead of after it. In that case, the original ~ 
introductions to the stories in Ch. XX could not have been DAM OD. Or NAM ny2 
There is, therefore, room for the hypothesis that the original introduction to XX 12ff., 
or perhaps to both stories contained in Ch. XX, was 13a. If by error, it was as- 
sumed that Hezekiah’s illness, Merodach-Balladin’s embassy and Sennacherib’s inva- 
sion of Palestine occurred during one year, it would have been natural to use 13a 
as an introduction to the story of Sennacherib’s invasion, and to introduce the other 
stories with the words O75 O'9'2 or &7N NY respectively. 

The above hypothesis harmonizes with the view that Merodach-Balladin’s embassy 
was sent during his first reign, if we accept 727 as the correct date for Hezekiah’s 
accession. If we accept 720-719 as the correct date, then the fourteenth year is 
earlier than the year in which Merodach-Balladin’s second reign took place; but it 
is not impossible to suppose that Merodach-Balladin inaugurated his conspiracies 
before he ascended the throne of Babylon. 

12There are three possible dates for the accession of Hezekiah, 727, 715 and 
720-719. The first is based on II K XVIII 9f, the second on II K XVIII 18a, and 
the third is derived by reckoning backwards from the destruction of the First 
Temple. 

Since the dates for the destruction of Samaria and for Sennacherib’s third canr- 
paign are definitely fixed by the Assyrian monuments as 722-721 and 701-700 
respectively, it is not possible to assume that Samaria was destroyed in the sixth 
year of Hezekiah’s reign and Palestine invaded by Sennacherib in Hezekiah’s four- 
teenth year; there is therefore a conflict between II K XVIII 10 and II K XVIII 13a. 
If we assume that II K XVIII 10 is a correct statement, the error in I] K XVIII 13a 
can be accounted for in accordance with either of the two hypotheses discussed in 
note 11. If we accept 720-719 as the correct date, then we must conclude that 
not only is 13a a wrong chronological notice, but that II K XVIII 9 and 10 are 
also wrong. This error can be explained by the assumption that the editor who was 
responsible for the synchronous chronological notices knew accurately the interval 
that had elapsed between the fall of Samaria and the destruction of the First 
Temple, and the length of the reigns of all of Hezekiah’s successors; but that he 
did not know the year of Hezekiah’s accession, and that he tried to compute this 
by reckoning backwards. Accordingly, by failing to make allowance for double 
reckoning, he would have decided that Hezekiah’s first regnal year was five years 
earlier than the destruction of Samaria, or that this event took place during 
Hezekiah’s sixth year. But if we accept II K XVIII 18a as correct, and conse- 
quently decide that Hezekiah’s accession took place in 715, it is difficult to account 
for the error in I] K XVIII 9, 10. 


Of the three dates, 727, 715 and 720, scholars are inclined to favor the last 
because it is easiest to harmonize with the chronological data concerning King Ahaz. 
In accordance with II K XVI 2, Ahaz reigned 16 years. Accordingly, 715 is an 
impossible date, because we know that Ahaz was King during the Syro-Ephraimitic 
War (cf. Is. VII 1ff.). Similarly, it is difficult to accept 727 as the correct date, 
because that would necessitate our assuming that Ahaz’s accession took place as 
early as 742 or 743, and that would complicate the already complicated problem 
of the earlier chronology. It is important to note, however, that it is not 1tmposstble 
to accept 742 as the correct date for Ahaz’s accession. The difficulty which the 
earlier chronology presents is that the sum of the regnal years of the Kings of 
Judah from the death of Ahaziah to the Syro-Ephraimitic War is greater than the 
true length of the interval, as is indicated by the Assyrian inscriptions. Scholars 
usually attempt to meet this difficulty by assuming that the fifty-two years assigned 
to Uzziah includes part of the twenty-nine years attributed to Amaziah (while the 


Notes to Chapter II 71 


latter was in captivity, II K XIV 13, 17, Uzziah may have served as Regent) and 
the period in which Jotham served as co-regent (II K XIV 5). Since the length of 
these periods of regency is not given, (Auchincloss is not correct in assuming that 
Lt K XI\ 17 implies that Amaziah was in captivity fifteen years—all that this verse 
States is that Amaziah lived fifteen years after the death of Jehoash, King of Israel; 
how long he was in captivity before the death of Jehoash is not stated) it is possible 
to contract the period between the accession of Athaliah and Ahaz a little more than 
is usually done; and accordingly, it becomes possible to accept 742 as the date for 
the accession of Ahaz, and 727 as the date for the accession of Hezekiah. 
_ In discussing the various theories concerning the date for Hezekiah’s accession, 
it is necessary to refer to Is, XIV 28-32. (‘Many scholars believe that Is. XIV 28 
was not intended to imply that Ahaz was “the rod that smote” the Philistines, and 
Hezekiah “the basilisk that shall come forth out of the serpent’s root’ (v.29); but 
rather to serve as a chronological notice dating the brief oracle which follows. If 
Ahaz died in 727, the year in which Tiglath-Pilether died, the reason for the Philis- 
tines’ rejoicing is clear. Similarly, if we assume that Ahaz died in 720, shortly 
after the Assyrian defeat at Dur-ilu, there would have been reason for the Philistines’ 
rejoicing during the year that Ahaz died. However, if we assume that Ahaz died 
in 715, it is not clear why the Philistines should have rejoiced during that year. 
13Bible critics are faced with a similar problem in determining the relation of Jer. 
LII to If K XXIV 18-XXV 30. Scholars are less inclined to question the assump- 
tion usually made that Jer. LII is an excerpt from Kings (Supported by Jer. LI 64 


WW MDT 37 Ty +). There is no reference to Jeremiah in Ch.LII, but the pur- 

pose of the editor of the book of Jeremiah in excerpting this chapter from the book 
of Kings and placing it as an appendix to his book would be clear—to indicate that 
Jeremiah s prophecy was realized. (Note the absence of the story of Gedaliah, II K 
XXV 22-26 from Jer. LII). 

It is important to note, however, that there is nothing in II K XXV corresponding 
to Jer. LI 28-30. If Jer. LII is taken front Kings, how is the inclusion of these 
verses in Jeremiah and their omission in Kings to be accounted for? Shall we 
assume that these verses were inserted from another account (cf. Stade, Polychrome 
Bible-Kings p. 305)? Or can we assume that they represent a later addition? Or 
that these verses were present in the Kings recension at the time that Jer. LII was 
excerpted from it? Or is it necessary to modify the hypothesis that Jer. LII was 
derived from Kings? 

“The Isianic rescension shows a definite tendency to greater simplicity and 
abridgment. (See notes 3 and 4 where the differences in the two rescensions are 
enumerated—note particularly the differences between IJ K XX 4-6 and I XXXVIII 
4-6, II K XX 9-11 and I XXXVIII 7-8). There is nothing in the Kings rescension 
however, to correspond to I XXXVIII 9-20 (Psalm of Hezekiah). Those who believe 
that the Isianic rescension is an abridgment of Kings have to account for the inclu- 
sion of this Psalm. The answer usually given is that it was derived from another 
source; but this answer is hardly consistent with the theory of abridgment. 

Driver, L.O.T. (1920) p.227, adduces the following additional arguments: 
(1) The following passages show manifest traces of having passed through the hand of 
the compiler of Kings: (a) I XXXVII 15-20 (form in which Hezekiah’s prayer is 
cast) (b) I XXXVII 35b (reference to David—no parallel in Isaiah, of frequent 
occurrence in Kings) (c) I XXXVIII 1 and I XXXIX 1 (“in those days’; “fat this 
time’?) (d) XXXVIII 8 (characteristic Deuteronomic phrase—cf. I Kings II 4; III 
6: VIII 23, 25: IX 4) (2) “although the prophecy attributed to Isaiah (Is. XXXVII 
22-82) is unmistakably Isaiah’s, the surrounding narrative shows no literary traits 
characteristic of Isaiah.” 

The following argument has also been given: I XXXVI 1 corresponds to i Wigs 
X\ IIT 13. The first part of the passage is in all likelihood the work of the compiler 
of Kings, who prepared the chronological framework into which the excerpts from 
the annals have been cast. If this assumption is correct, then the probability that 
Isaiah is derived from Kings is very strong. (Thus we are once more confronted 
with a vicious circle). . 

16AJ.S.L. (April 1915) p.169-214. In this article Prof. Olmstead tries to trace 
the history of the Hebrew Text on the basis of a comparative study of the transla- 
tions. Prof. Olmstead maintains that the translations indicate a definite tendency to 
elaborate the text rather than to abridge it. ; , 

Al] scholars are agreed that the excerpts from the State Annals, which furnish 
us with a brief summary of the reigns of the various Kings, form the framework of 
the entire book. To these excerpts were added as a part of the framework, chrono- 
logical notices stereotyped formulae at the beginning and ending of each reign, 
comments (in the Deuteronomistic spirit) concerning each king. There were later 
added excerpts fron prophetic writings and diverse sources of unknown origin. 
Before the Book of Kings assumed its present form, (M.T.) it was probably edited 
and re-edited a number of times (many passages attributed to the Deuteronomistic 
editor are undoubtedly of a later origin). Consequently, although it is conceded 
that the text of Kings underwent development and change, the possibility that verses 
14-16 are a later interpolation, is a very remote one. 


72 Notes to Chapter II 


Skinner, in his commentary on Isaiah (p.277) after considering Driver’s argu- 
ments in favor of the assumption that Isaiah was borrowed from Kings, admits the 
possibility of the theory that Kings and Isaiah may have been independently derived. 
He dismisses the question, however, with the statement that ‘‘there is no great reason 
for assuming that the editor of Isaiah used as an independent authority the older 
document on which the editor of Kings based his account.” I am sorry, that Prof. 
Skinner dismissed this question so lightly, for there is a great deal of plausibility to 
the theory of the independent derivation of Kings and Isaiah. 

19Jf we assume a very close correspondence between the Biblical account in its 
present form (an intermediate source) and the original documents from which they 
were derived (a primary source) the source value of the Biblical story is enhanced; 
but it is important to remember, that the trustworthiness of the accounts in Kings 
and Isaiah, would be dependent upon the trustworthiness of the original source. 

201f this verse is to be assumed to have been derived from the annals, then we 
are confronted with the difficulty of accounting for the spelling of the King’s 
mame as IW ptr 

21Cf.Floigl—Die Chronologie der Bibel (Leipzig 1889) pp. 28ff. Floigl bases his 
argument that IT K XVIII 17—XX 19 is a post-exilic legendary tale on the reference 
to deportation to Babylon in II K XX 17. It is important to note, however, that in 
this prophecy there is no reference to the destruction of the Tempfe, and no mention 
is made of the entire people going into captivity; and surely, if II K XX 17ff. had 
been composed during the post-exilic period, both of these elements would have been 
included. However, many scholars agree with Floigl that this prophecy is non-Isianic. 
(Some interpret it as a reference to Manasseh. Cf. II Ch. XXXIII 11.) Those 
scholars, who accept II K XX 17f. as an Isianic oracle, must admit that it could not 
have been possible for an eighth century prophet to have anticipated that a king of 
Babylon would some day take the royal family of Judah into captivity. They must 
interpret the reference to the king of Babylon as a figure of speech; that Isaiah had 
in mind not the king of Babylon, but the king of Assyria, and that he referred to 
the King of Babylon for the sake of greater contrast. This is a very natural inter- 
pretation of the entire situation. To grant, however, that this oracle is a non-Isianic 
late composition, does not make necessary the assumption that the whole account into 
which this oracle has been incorporated is of late origin. 

Kuenen cites as proof that II K XVIiI 17—XIX 37 is a late legendary account (1) 
the fact that there is a gross exaggeration in the description of the number killed 
(v.86); (2) that v.37 implies that the death of Sennacherib took place immediately 
after Sennacherib’s return to Assyria. (This interpretation of v.37 is very common 
It is used as an argument in favor of the hypothesis that during the latter part of 
Sennacherib’s reign, there took place a second Assyrian invasion of Palestine. Per- 
sonally, I do not see why such an implication must be assigned to v.37; in fact the 
words M332 sw) seem’ to indicate a contrary implication); (3) Rabshakeh’s 
allusions to the destruction of altars and high-places (see pp. 52ff.) where Rabshakeh’s 
address is analysed and discussed in detail); (4) the thoughts expressed by Hezekiah 
in his prayer (XIX 15-19) represent the thoughts of a later age; (5) the prophecies 
ascribed to Isaiah are not Isianic. Kuenen believes that the story evolved as a result 
of the prediction expressed by Isaiah in Ch. XVII v.14 (see Ch. III pp. 96ff.). 

22Even those who hold the view that II K XVIII 17ff. describes a subsequent 
stage of the campaign referred to in vv.14-16, admit that vv.14-16 represent an inde- 
pendent source. 

If so, there may have been in the state annals an account corresponding to II K 
XVIII 17ff. which was not quoted by the editor of Kings. His failure to do so, 
however, can be accounted for by the assumption that he preferred to make use of 
the fuller account. Similiarly, in order to explain his resorting to the annals to 
describe the tribute paid, it is not necessary to assume that the other source did not 
contain any mention of this fact. It is very possible that both sources may have 
contained a description of the payment of tribute and that the editor of Kings preferred 
to quote the annals, because it was described there either more fully or else, nrore 


accurately. ; , : 1 
eee Sargon’s account of the battle of Dur-ilu with the Babylonian Chronicle 


Coli 13 

Suck eevee of the order on the part of the Hebrew historian can be explained 
only as a deliberate attempt on his part to make it appear that the outcome of 
Sennacherib’s campaign was entirely unfavorable. If so, why was it necessary for 
him to include the story of the payment of tribute? 

*The advance of Tirhakah, or rumors of unrest in Babylon. 

°6This theory was first suggested by Sir H. Rawlinson (quoted by G. Rawlinson, 
History of Herodotus—1862). ‘Rawlinson’s suggestion, however, was not seriously 
considered until it was restated by Winckler. To-day it is advocated by Prdsek, 
Fullerton and Rogers and other scholars of repute. 

“77 will show below that there are some scholars who advocate the hypothesis 
of a second campaign, and yet regard XVIII 17—XIX 9 as referring to the same 
campaign as XVIII 14-16. They base their theory of a second campaign on XIX 9-37. 

*8Unless the Lachish bas-relief does not describe the capture of Lachish 11) 7 Oe 
but Sang; capture of that city during the hypothetical second campaign. See 


Ch. I p 


Notes to Chapter II 73 


Cf. Vitringa, Commentarius in Jesaiam (1720) v.II p. 306 Col, 11: 

%Even in accordance with this view ,we can not assume that Isaiah XXXVI- 
XXXIX was the only source used by the author of the Kings account. Vv.14-16 
indicate that there were other sources at his disposal. 

“Since Is. XXXVII 388 describing the death of Sennacherib mrust have been 
written after 681, the year in which that event happened, we must assume a minimum 
lapse of twenty years between the transpiring of the events described and the time 
of writing; (that is, if we take for granted that v.88 was a part of the original 
account). If so, then this account, if written by Isaiah, must have been written when 
Isaiah was more than eighty years old. (We must assume that Isaiah was born 
c.760, since his career as a prophet began in the year when Uzziah died, (c.740) 
and since during the Syro-Ephraimitic War (735) he already had a son who was 
probably old enough to walk by himself). 

It is necessary to keep in mind, however, the possibility that v.38 was added 
some timre after Sennacherib was killed. (If Is. XXXVII 7 was a genuine Isianic 
prophecy, it would have been natural for this verse to be added, in order to indicate 
that the prophecy had been fulfilled. If we suspect that the i WARD AW. WHNepn 
were added by a glossator, then we can be sceptical as to v.38 

82No inference as to the Isianic authorship of Ch. XXXVI XXXXIX can be 
drawn from the reference in Chronicles (IJ Chr. XXXII 32) to the History of 
Hezekiah’s reign which is to be found in the Vision of Isaiah. (The Chronicler cites 
as his authority not only the Vision of Isaiah, but also the book of the Kings of 
Judah and Isaiah. The Macentete Text reads “IBD SYN9DI7 PION 32 Ww TIN 
Ssiwyy may %35mO0n the basis of Greek \ulgate and Aramaic versions,it is safe to 
assume that Sy} is more correct than %Y). If this reference is to Ch. XXXVI- 
XXXIX of our books of Isaiah, all that can be safely assumed on the strength of 
chis reference is that these chapters must have already belonged to the collection 
of Isianic prophecies at the time that the chronicler was preparing his history. (It 
is a Jewish custom to refer to_a book by the opening words. We can, therefore, 
readily conceive that the book of Isaiah was at one time referred to asin°yw 1[)tn). 

It is possible to contend, that since Isaiah is very specifically referred to as an 
historian in connection with Uzziah’s reign, (II Chr. XXVI 22), the assumption that 
Isaiah is also the author of a history of Hezekiah’s reign is very plausible. Even if 
we grant this contention for the moment, it is necessary to kee> in mind that to 
assume that Isaiah was the author of a history of Hezekiah’s reign does not warrant 
us in the further assumption that this history constitutes Chapters XXXVI-XXXIX 
of our present book of Isaiah. In our present Look of Isaiah, there is no trace of 
Uzziah’s reign which is ascribed to him, and, therefore, if the reference is accurate, 
it must refer to a non-extant document. Is ‘it not conceivable that the reference in 
Chronicles to a history of Hezekiah is not to our present book, but also to this non- 
extant document, of which the history of Uzziah was also a part? The supposition 
might be reversed, however. It is also conceivable, although not probable, that the 
history of Uzziah referred to by the Chronicler might have at one time belonged to 
the book of Isaiah. It might be assumed that in Isaiah’s ‘‘History of Uzziah” there 
was nothing about himself, and therefore an editor of the book of Isaiah, who was 
later than the chronicler, considered these chapters out of place in a took of Isaiah’s 
prophecies and removed them. Such a procedure would have been very natural, 
particularly if at that time it was no longer known that the history was written by 
Isaiah. In accordance with this assumption ch. XXXVI-XXXIX were allowed ta 
remain, not because they were written by Isaiah, but because of the prominent part 
played by Isaiah in the events described. Such a defence of Isaiah’s authorship, 
comes very close to the theories advocated by those who deny the Isianic authorship, 
and who assume that their presence in the book of Isaiah is due to the desire of the 
editor of the book of Isaiah to give credit to Isaiah for his achievemrents during the 
national crisis. 

%3However, it is possible to argue that even in accordance with the theory that 
there were intermediate rescensions, there is no reason to suspect that our present 
text is radically different from the original source. The inclusion of vv.14-16 seems 
to indicate that the editors did not take very much liberty witn their sources, but 
that they tended to incorporate whatever sources came to their disposal in almost 
the identical form in which they found them. This assumption is confirmed by the 
fact that the two extant rescensions differ from one another very little. 

MChs. Vib and mia Ch XXX UR: 

%Cf. Meinhold, Die Jesajaerzahlungen pp. 49ff. 

86In accordance with this view, II K XIX 9b ff. must be regarded as describing 
Sad which happened immediately after the events described in [1 K XVIII 17— 

87Those who believe that Kings and Isaiah were derived independently, cannot 
advocate the theory that they were derived from two independent sources. _ If they 
favor the view that II K XVIII 17-XIX 87 (corresponding chapters in Isaiah) is a 
composite, they must assume that the source from which Kings and Isaiah were 
derived was already composite. In which case, the probability is in favor of this 
document being a rather late document. 

88The analysis given here represents a modification of that made by Stade 
(Anmerkungen zu II K XV-XX) Z.A.W. v.6 (1886) pp. 172ff. 

Stade bases his contention that II K XVIII 17-XIX 37 is not a unity on three 


74, Notes to Chapter II 


arguments. (1) There are three prophecies attributed to Isaiah (XIX 7, 28b, 33) 
and there is no reference in the latter prophecies that a previous prophecy had been 
given. (2) The first prophecy XIX 7 is the most severe—there is no threat to 
Sennacherib in the others. It does not seem natural that when reiterating a prophecy, 
the prophet would omit an important threat. (38) That XIX 9a seems to be a fitting 
finish to the story begun in II] K XVIII 13 and XVIII 17 (vv.8 and 9a seem to be 
a ae pa of the prophecy in v.7); whereas XIX 9bff. is an unnatural sequence to 
XIX Qa. 

In addition to separating II K XVIII 17-XIXa from XIXb-37, Stade believes that 
It EK eer 21-31 should be excluded from II K XIX 9b-37. For his arguments 
see pp. 47ff, 

8*TT K XIX 14. ‘Some scholars believe that there is a contradiction between 
v.14 and v.10. It can not be inferred from v.10 that the message of Sennacherib was 
oral. Early Babylonian letters usually start with formula ‘‘To A say ‘Thus sayeth B.’ ” 
This form of salutation is very frequent in the Hammurabbi and the Amarna Periods. 
[It does not seem to have been used much by the Sargonid Kings. It is found, 
however, in a letter of Ashurbanipal H 926. (See J.A.O.S. v.43 pp. 26-40.) This 
form of salutation can be explained in various ways. It may have originated from 
che custom of supplementing the written message with an oral one (so that the 
oressage could be properly delivered even if the written one were lost), or else it 
may have arisen out of the custom of having letters read by professional readers. 
(For this note I am indebted to Dr. E. G. H. Kraeling.) 

OTT K XVIII 17, (I XXXVI 2). Some scholars, who do not believe that 
these verses refer to the blockade mentioned in the Assyrian Annals, have interpreted 
the words 725 5°*m3 as referring toa military escort rather than to a large army. 
The text does not allow such an interpretation, and such a conclusion can only be 
reached by deliberately tampering with the text. Some scholars seem to find it 
easier to make the text accommodate itself to the theory, than to try to accommodate 
a. theory, to) the) text. 

41In II K XIX 7, Isaiah predicts that Sennacherib will return to his own land 
because of a rumor that he will hear, and that there he will die an unnatural death. 
In II K XIX 382 Isaiah predicts that God will protect Jerusalem, and as a result, 
Jerusalem will be immune. 

_*If the second account begins with 9a, then the end of the first account is 
missing. 

aIf vv.36 and 37 are a part of the second account, then in accordance with 
the first account, Isaiah’s prophecy remains unfulfilled. 

44Stade (1.c.) suggests a very tempting emendation, viz., the inclusion of the 


word S18" after the word 1} (v.9). It is interesting to note that the word - 
au} is lacking in the Isianic rescension. Shall we assume that in both rescensions, 
the phrase }$985 3" was originally present—that when the two accounts were 


joined together, the Isianic editor tried to harmonize them by omitting the entire 
phrase, whereas the editor of Kings was not quite so logical and therefore retained 
the word {YIN There can be no doubt that the word 32} in the text of 
Kings makes the text difficult. To accept Stade’s emendation makes it necessary to 
accept his hypothesis that II K XVIII 17-XIX 9a represents a complete account. 

45. One of the chief difficulties with this division is the word Sv} in the 
Kings rescension, Those who wish to divide the two accounts at the end of v.8 must 
assume that the editor of Kings added the word 3) in a crude attempt to make 
the second account appear as a natural sequel to the first. Accordingly, those scholars 
who believe that K was derived from I, escape the necessity of accounting for the 


absence of the word 27} in the Isianic rescension. Those _ scholars, who believe 
that I was derived from K, must assume that the editor of Isaiah, while copying the 
Kings composite, sensed an incongruity in the word 2" and substituted the 


word ypu) ; 

46Sennacherib may have advanced as far as Pelusium (Herodotus II 141). If 
we accept Herodotus’ statement that he got as far as Pelusium, we must also accept 
the subsequent statement that he was checked there. 

47Kuenen, for example, maintains that II K XIX 21-81 is a genuine Isianic 
oracle, despite the fact that he admits that v.25 is suspicious. (He, too, thinks that 
v.25 suggests II Isaiah.) Kuenen bases his view on fhe fact thay the prophecy is 
conerete and that the language of this section resembles very closely the language of 
Esha se teii ai however, questions the authenticity of vv.32-34 on account of the 
phras S2yY 333 y¥n9) This phrase is not Isianic; it is a very enaracteristic phrase 
of oh Meir of Kings—I K XI 12, 13, 32, 34; XV Fel TKR EV LED 19s xe ee aes 
view that II K XIX 21-28 is Isianic is shared by Sellin (Einleitung in das Alte Testa- 
ment.) Sellin refers to it as a “‘Spottlied’” on the King of Assyria. (Sellin admits 
that vv.25-27 might not be Isianic but a late addition.) Driver (L.O.T. 1920, p. 227) 
also accepts LT XIX 21-31 as Isianic. He believes that “the prophecy bears unmis- 
takable marks of Isaiah’s hand, but that the surrounding narrative is the work of a 
later writer.” 

4821a is not a part of the poem. 


49There is no reference to this fact in A. It is possible that such a fact may 
have been recorded in the Hebrew Annals, but that the compiler of the Book of Kings 
did not include it when making his excerpt. 

50In the discussion of Is. XVII 12-14, I have idnicated the possibility of such 


\ 


Notes to Chapter II 75 


a legend evolving without a basis in fact, as a result of naive assumption that all of 
{[saiah’s predictions must have been realized. 

te tt! 2d HSE 

Sl YIDIDRITT BYY SISA TWN 13N 
_ 583If we regard vv.36 and 37 as a part of B, then the correctness of the informa- 
tion contained in v.37 would be another indication that B was based on authentic 
sources. 

Not all scholars are ready to concede that the details given in v.37 concerning the 
murder of Sennacherib are accurate. It will be helpful to analyse this verse and 
to discuss each element separately. 

(a) The reference to ‘‘the temple of Nishroch his god’ is not clear—but 
that Sennacherib was murdered while worshipping in a temple is indicated by 
a reference to the murder of his grandfather in an inscription of Ashurbanipal 
(Rassam Cylinder Col. IV 7O0ff. translated K, B. II 192). Jirku (A. K. 
p. 182) suggests that 3703 probably represents a mutilated form of a name 
of a Babylonian deity. Some scholars have tried to identify 703 with Marduk, 
but the identification is rather far-fetched. (Nor have the attempts to identify 
the name with that of an Assyrian deity been more successful. For further 
discussion of this question see J. Offord—The Assassination of Sennacherib, 
P.E.F. 1918, pp. 88-90; Ungnad. Der Ort der Ermorderung, Z.A. v.XXXV; 
Adler—On the death of Sennacherib, A.O.S.J. v. XIII, 1889.) 

(b) In accordance with v.37, Sennacherib was murdered by two sons. In 
accordance with the Babylonian Chronicle (Col. III 1.84) he was killed by 
only one son. A statement in an inscription of Nabonidus (Nabonidus Stele 
1.39, see M.V.A.G., 1896 p. 25) and a quotation from Polyhistor (which is in 
turn a quotation from Berossus) by Eusebius (Eusebi Chronicorum, Liber I, 
ed. Schoene, Berlin 1875, I 27) correspond with the Babylonian Chronicle. On 
the other hand, that Sennacherib was murdered by more than one son is con- 
firmed by a reference in an inscription of Essarhaddon to his brothers (he 
uses the plural consistently throughout his account) who murdered his father 
(cf. Albright, J.A.O.S. v.XXXV pp. 391 ff., Meissner O.Z. 1914, col. 344-346). 

(c) There is no reference anywhere to sons of Sennacherib who bear the 
names of Adramelech and Sharezer (there have been a number of attempts to 
identify these names with the names of the known sons of Sennacherib, but they 
have not been successful. Cf.Hall, A.H.N.E. p. 493). The limnru corresponding 
to 682 was named after Nabusharusur (was he one of the conspirators who 
killed Sennacherib, the Sharezer of the Old Testament?) ye ow is evidently 
a Hebraization of an Assyrian (cr Babylonian) name. Can we assume that 
Ardumuzanus, the name of Sennacherib’s murderer given by Polyhistor, is a 
Greek corruption of the same name? It is easier to identify Adramelech with 
Adramelus, who, in accordance with Eusebius’ quotation of Abydenus, was the 
murderer of his father Nergal. (!) (It is now known that the quotation from 
Abydemus can be traced to Polyhistor’s quotations from Berossus. Cf.Schnabel- 
Berossus pp. 167ff.) 


(d) There is no confirmation in the Assyrian sources of the statement that 
the murderers fled to Ararat (Urartu?), but Essarhaddon, in his description 
of his efforts to avenge his father’s death (l.c.) states that upon his approach 
the murderers fled to an unknown land. Is it not possible that this unknown 
land was Urartu? If so, the author of v.87 must have been exceedingly well- 
informed. (Cf. Josephus’ quotation from Berossus.) 

(e) It is important to note the accurate reference to Sennacherib’s successor. 


“Mall (C.A.H. v.III p. 279) rather than to admit a natural anachronism, sug- 
gests the possibility that the clash between the Egyptians and the Assyrians described 
by Herodotus II 141 and II K XVIII 17ff. (BC) refers to Essarhaddon’s unsuccessful 
invasion of Egypt. He prefers this new hypothesis to the hypothesis of a second 
invasion by Sennacherib, (which he defends in A.H.N.E. 5th edition, 1920), because 
there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the assumption that Sennacherib invaded 
Palestine during the last years of his reign. Hall admits that it may have been 
possible for Tirhakah to have been in command of an Egyptian army in 701, but in 
order to explain the reference to Tirhakah as King of Ethiopia, he prefers to assume 
that both the Egyptians and the Hebrews confused Essarhaddon with Sennacherib. 
(Sic! A remarkable coincidence). This view is shared by S. Smith, C.A.H. v.III p. 74. 

bb Os1wy? ma) Asp nsywo onyn rm? _..payp yw) 9D 159) The expression 
YiIS7 MIPis used by II Isaiah in a literal sense (Is. XLII 3). : 

Sly] K XVIII 4 (cf. Il Chr. XXIX-XXXI). The chief reasons for doubting 
the historicity of the account of Hezekiah’s reformrs are (a) its similarity to the reforms 
of Josiah and (b) to the lack of reference in the description of Josiah’s reforms to 
a similar reform during the time of Hezekiah (cf.JI K XXIII 18; cf.1I K XXIII 22 
and II Chr. Ch.XXX, especially verses 21 and 26). 

Many scholars believe that the reforms of Hezekiah may have been limited to the 
breaking of the bronze serpent (there is no reason for questioning the historicity of 
this statement—the description has the earmarks of an authentic account. That a 
bronze serpent was worshipped in the Temple is very possible. It is also probable 
that there was a popular notion that this serpent derived its sanctity from Moses 
ninrself. If so, the fact that in the detailed statement of all the abominations removed 
from the Temple by Josiah, there is no reference to this bronze serpent, seems to 


76 Notes to Chapter Il 


be a confirmation of the statement that this bronze serpent ( 1nwns) was destroyed 
by Hezekiah). They assume that the extension of Hezekiah’s reforms to include the 
removal of the high-places was influenced by the description of Josiah’s reforms. (An 
editor living after Josiah’s reforms had taken root might naturally have inferred that 
1f Hezekiah was a pious king, who re Cone was right zn the eyes of the 
not have countenanced the high-places. 

Morrie gion * advocated by Prof. Fullerton. Consequently, Prof. Fullerton 
believes that v.22 may be a genuine reproduction of an argument used by Rabshakeh, 
if Rabshakeh’s address was delivered towards the end of Hezekiah’s reign. 

ssEven if we grant that v.22 could not have been an argument used by Rabshakeh, 
it does not necessarily imply that the whole address is unhistorical. It is not possible 
to impugn the whole by impugning one element, because there always remains the 
possibility that this element was added at a later time, This possibility is strengthened 
py the fact that in the summaries of Rabshakeh’s address in C, this argument is omitted. 

According to B, Rabshakeh presented three arguments to prove that there is no 


hope for the Judeans. 

(1) They can not depend upon Egypt for assistance, because Egypt is a 
bruised reed (v.21), and they can not do without Egypt, beesuse they have no 
cavalry of their own (vv.23, 24). : ; , 

(2) Tney can not depend upon their God, because their God is wroth, since 
His places of worship have been destroyed (v.22). (V.25 mray be considered 
as a continuation of the argument presented in v.22. The Assyrian would have 
been very much surprised to learn that a Judean had announced that the God 
of the Judeans would bring about the destruction of Judah. ‘This extraordinary 
prediction would be more intelligible to him, if he assumed that such a strange 
decision of a national deity had been caused by the destruction of that deity’s 
places of worship, than if he tried to associate that decision with the motivating 
causes announced by the prophet). 

(3) They can not depend upon their God, because He is no match for the 
god of Assyria-Asur. No other god has been able to resist successfully the 
god of Assyria—there is no reason for the Judeans assuming that it would be 
different in their case (vv.30, 33-35). 


In C, only the last argument is presented. Is it not possible that this, therefore, 
was the argument actually used by Rabshakeh, and that the other arguments represent 
later additions? It is not possible to use as an argument in favor of this assumption 
the inconsistency between arguments 2 and 8, because it is just as easy to assume 
that Rabshakeh did not sense the delightful inconsistency, as it is to assume that the 
one, who elaborated the address and added imaginary arguments, did not sense it. 
(The Chronicler concentrates on argument 3, but he also includes a reference to the 
second argument. Since the Chronicler is evidently summarizing a text corresponding 
to the text found in our book of Kings, no inferences can be made on the basis of 
Chronicles). 

BIC Tt PESA NNO 1-8 

s9But it is very possible that the Assyrians were well informed of everything 
that was going on in all their vassal states, and that a detailed report of Isaiah’s 
strange predictons had been sent on to Nineveh by the Assyrian representatives in 
Jerusalem. If so, it would not have been impossible for the Assyrian to use this 
seemingly strange argument, since he knew that his hearers would understand that he 
was alluding to utterances made by one of their own prophets. 

61J placed vv.26 and 27 in brackets to indicate that they are not part of 
Rabshakeh’s speech. 

682Cf, Lidzbarski—Altaramaische Urkunden aus Assur. (W.V.D.O.G. v.X XXVIII) 
“Bei den Ausgrabungen in Assur wurden mehrere Urkunden in Aramdischer Sprache 
gefunden, die all dem 7 Jahrhundert v.Chr. angehoéren. Die Verwendung der Araméai- 
schen Schrift in Assyrien und Babylonien lisst sich nach der Keilschrifttexten und 
bildlichen Darstellungen, bis in das 9 Jahrhundert v.Chr. verfolgen.’”’ I have quoted 
Lidzbarski’s opening paragraph. 

Cf. also C. I. 'S. Part JI v.I Ch.1. It is interesting,to note some of the’ lion- 
weights discussed bear cuneiform inscriptions indicating that they were made during 
the reigns of Shalmeneser, Sargon and Sennacherib. (When these lion-weights were 
first found by Layard, the bilingual inscriptions attracted considerable attention; but 
is was assumed that the Semitic inscrptons were Phoenician. cf.Rawlinson, J.R.A.S. 
v.X XI (new series I) p. 187ff. and Layard Babylon and Nineveh (1853) p. 600ff. 

®8This passage is difficult regardless whether we consider Rabahakenre speech 
as original, or whether we regard it as the composition of an imaginative Hebrew 
writer. Unless we resort to the easy way of escaping all difficulties by assuming that 
it is a gloss of a later writer, it is hard to meet this difficulty. 

66Cf. Is. X 11. The hypothetical boast attributed to Sennacherib by Isaiah 
(X 9-11) may be a reference to this argument of Rabshakeh—or we may assume that 
this was a customary argument used by the Assyrians, and consequently X 9-11 is 
not a specific reference. If we take for granted that the address attributed to 
Rabshakeh is an imaginary composition, then it is possible to assume that this argument 
is an elaboration of Isiah’s hypothetical description of Sennacherib’s boast. (Another 
illustration of the vicious circle.) 


Those, who amend the text in accordance with the Septuagint to read that the 
Hebrew ambassadors were silent, take away the most vivid element from the picture. 


Notes to Chapter Il 77 


To conceive the people as silent, although impressed, is the stroke of an artist, (i.e. if 
it is not an actual portrayal of what transpired). | i } 

In accordance with Sennacherib’s annals, Hezekiah’s mercenaries, as well as his 
regular troops deserted, but it is not possible to come to any conclusion as to when 


this happened. 

oA HLNCE, p. 491. 

Cf. Ex. XII 29; Nu. XXV 8b, 9; I S V6; II S XXIV 16. 

®Meinhold—-Die Jesajaerzahlungen, pp. 32ff. 

Tliad I, 39. } 

* ®Accordingly, just as the Hebrews attributed Sennacherib’s failure to capture 
Terusalem to the intervention of their God, so the Egyptians may have interpreted the 
Assyrians’ failure to follow up their opportunity as due to the intervention of their 
god (or gods). ; F y 

“These six hypotheses do not exhaust all the possibilities. Kleinert’s discredited 
hypothesis that A refers to a campaign of Sargon, and B C to Sennacherib’s third 
campaign, has been discussed elsewhere. 

S. Smith (followed by H. R. Hall) believes that A refers to the campaign of 701 
and B C and Herodotus 141 to a campaign of Essarhaddon. C. A. H. v.III pp. 74ff. 

The Assyrian annalist deliberately confined his attention to the first part of 
the campaign, because it was in his interest to do so. Moreover, he did not narrate 
his story in correct chronological sequence, in order to give the impresson that he 
had described the entire campaign. 

The Assyrian annalist did not wish to admit that the campaign ended abruptly, 
and that the return to Assyria was conditioned, not by Sennacherib’s desires, but by 
tircumstances beyond his control. Moreover, in order to give the inrpression that 
Sennacherib had attained his objectives, he was compelled to change the chronological 
sequence. 

There are some scholars, who believe that the chronological sequence of B and A 
was the reverse of the order given in the Bible. Accordingly, Sennacherib ended his 
zampaign abruptly (because of rumors of unrest in Babylonia, yr of an advancing 
Egyptian army, or both) without capturing Jerusalem, but Hezekiah, who had suffered 
severe losses during the campaign, decided to profess loyalty to Assyria, and sent his 
tribute to Nineveh. 

“Tf so, it becomes difficult to explain why the author of the Kings account, 
who also made use of the state annals (vv.14-15) should have failed to include any 
reference to the attempt of Hezekiah to provide for the defence of Jerusalem. 

Accordingly, all the references have the same thing in mind, some emphasizing 
one aspect, and others, the other. Most scholars believe that these references describe 
the diverting of the waters of Gihon, which originally flowed into the Kidron valley 
into the pool of Siloam, an artificial reservoir built within the city proper. This was 
done by means of a tunnel cut through the rock (the Siloam Tunnel). 

7Tsaiah’s purpose in describing Hezekiah’s efforts to prepare for a siege, is in 
order to contrast the reliance of the people of Judah on human means, and their failure 
to trust in God; whereas the Chronicler pictures Hezekiah as putting his chief trust 
upon Divine assistance, “for there is a Greater with us than with him; with him is an 
arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord, our God, to help us, and to fight our battles.” 

77In accordance with this theory, the first disappointment of the Allies consisted 
in the late arrival of the Egyptian contingent, and in the fact that Sennacherib was 
not stopped until after Sidon and Ashkelon had fallen. Their second disappointment 
would naturally have been the outcome of the battle of Eltekeh. 


78As has been indicated elsewhere, some scholars believe that Sennacherib allowed 
Hezekiah to buy his pardon, because he was unwilling to undertake such a formidable 
task as the siege of Jerusalem (see p. 19). It is hardly likely that Jerusalem was an 
impregnable fortress, if the preparations for defence were left for the last minute. 


The advocates of the theory of a second campaign usually ascribe all of 
Isaiah’s anti-Assyrian prophecies to the time when that campaign was made. It is not 
probable that all these prophecies were made during a very short interval. Nevertheless, 
it is important to note that such an assumption is not altogether impossible. 


8A very important reason for doubting the correctness of the assertion that 
Hezekiah’s defence measures were undertaken at the last moment, irrespective of the 
time that they were made, is that the nature of Hezekiah’s undertakings, the building 
of an inner wall as well as an outer wall (some archaeologists believe that these walls 
have been identified) and an aqueduct, does not correspond with the frenzied efforts 
involved in a last minute attempt to meet an emergency. Perhaps the rude construc- 
tion of the [Siloam tunnel may be presented as evidence in favor of the accuracy of 
the Chronicler’s statement. (Incidentally, if this tunnel was built during the stress 
of war, it does not indicate that the people of Judah were as deficient in engineering 
skill as is generally supposed.) 

SINot necessarily. immediately after. Cf. II Chr. XXIX 83ff. 

S.No inference can be drawn from the fact that of all that transpired during 
Hezekiah’s reign, the Reformation is the first thing described in Kings; because 
II K XVIII 3, 5-7 are a summary of the entire reign and II K XVIII 4 was probably 
introduced where it was, in order to support the contention of v.3. 

sCf. II K XIX 8. 

§4V.19 may be taken as an indication of the Chronicler’s feelings. 


CuHaptTer III. 


THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH 


Contemporary prophecy has for a long time been recognized as 
a very important source for the reconstruction of Biblical history. 
In view of the important role played by the prophet Isaiah during 
the crisis of 701, his prophecies would furnish us with valuable 
clues for the solution of many unsolved problems involved in the 
reconstruction of the story of that crisis, provided it would be pos- 
sible to establish definitely which prophecies were delivered by 
him, and to determine the circumstances under which a given oracle 
was spoken or written. Unfortunately, such is not the case. 

We are certain that the book of Isaiah, in its present form, is 
a post exilic work; we are also reasonably certain that even the 
first part (Ch. 1—xxxrx) when taken by itself, represents a post 
exilic compilation of independent collections of [sianic prophecies. 
Moreover, we have every reason to believe that a number of the 
prophecies contained in some of these collections are not Isaiah’s. 

There are a number of prophecies (and passages) concerning 
which there is a considerable difference of opinion amongst scholars. 
Some scholars are convinced that these prophecies are genuinely 
Isianic; others are equally certain that they are post exilic, and 
still others, while admitting that in their present form there is 
ground for suspecting their authenticity, maintain that they are 
derived from or based on genuine Isianic oracles. Some of the 
theories concerning Sennacherib’s invasion are based on the prophe- 
cies belonging to this category. The attitude of scholars towards 
a given theory will naturally depend upon their attitude towards the 
passage upon which it is based, and vice-versa, the attitude of 
scholars towards a given passage will frequently depend upon the 
theory that they are ready to entertain. 

Furthermore, the arrangement of the book of Isaiah is not 
chronological, consequently, the date of every prophecy must be 
determined on the basis of internal evidence. Unfortunately, the 
criteria which guide scholars in deciding to which period to assign 
a given prophecy are not definite. As a result, there is again 
considerable disagreement amongst scholars. Sometimes, we are 


A Critical Source Study 79 


confronted with a vicious circle. The criterion used by a partic- 
ular scholar in determining whether a given prophecy belongs to a 
certain period of the prophet’s career depends on a hypothetical 
reconstruction of the historical circumstances of that period. Other 
scholars, starting out from different premises, reach different con- 
clusions concerning this prophecy. They may then use this oracle 
(or rather their interpretation of it) as a means of discrediting 
the hypothesis in question. 

The prophecies which have been assigned by most scholars to 
the period of the Assyrian crisis (705-700) divide themselves into 
two groups: Isaiah anticipates in the one, the destruction of his 
people; in the other, a great deliverance. The reconciliation of 
these two groups of prophecies is one of the difficult problems 
of Isaiah criticism. Some scholars try to meet the problem by 
placing all the pro-Assyrian prophecies in an earlier period of 
Isaiah’s career (the reign of Sargon) and limiting his prophecies 
during the crisis of 701 to the anti-Assyrian. Other scholars 
maintain that the change in Isaiah’s views took place during the 
crisis, and therefore contend that some or all of the pro-Assyrian 
prophecies belong to the period in which the preparations were 
made for the rebellion (705-701), and that the anti-Assyrian proph- 
ecies were delivered while the Assyrians were devastating the 
country. Those who believe that there were two campaigns of 
Sennacherib, one in 701 and one in 690, naturally argue that the 
first group of prophecies were delivered by Isaiah during the first 
invasion and the other during the second. In fact, the advocates 
of this hypothesis regard the two groups of prophecies representing 
such divergent views as a confirmation of their theory that there 
were two campaigns. : 

There is a difficulty with all the attempts at reconciling the 
pro-Assyrian and anti-Assyrian prophecies by ascribing each group 
to a different period and by assuming that between these two 
periods the prophet experienced a profound change of mind, viz., 
that in some oracles the pro-Assyrian and anti-Assyrian views are 
blended together and in their present form, seem to indicate that 
both views were expressed at the same time. Historic reconstruction 
based on the oracles of Isaiah will therefore differ in accordance 
with our manner of dividing the prophecies into independent oracles. 


80 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


Here too, there is considerable disparity of opinion due to the fact 
that every scholar must base his judgment on vague criteria, which 
are subjective rather than objective. 

Another factor, which makes it difficult to build historic theories 
on the basis of evidence presented by contemporary prophecy, is 
that the meaning of certain passages is not clear. In one case 
the construction put on a preposition determines whether the pas- 
sage should be regarded as minatory or conciliatory. Sometimes 
the similies used by the prophet are ambiguous in character and 
allow different interpretations, opposite in character. Sometimes, 
the difference in construction is due to the fact that one inter- 
preter tries to explain a simile in the light of the entire passage 
as it has come down to us in the Massoretic Text, whereas the 
other insists that certain verses are later interpolations and explains 
the remainder of the passage accordingly. 

In view of the fact that differences in interpretation based on 
different answers to the various problems that each prophecy pre- 
sents lead to differences in historic reconstruction, it is necessary 
to consider separately all the prophecies which have been ascribed 
by recent scholars to the time when Sennacherib’s invasion or in- 
visions took place, to examine the different theories concerning each 
prophecy, and to note the bearing of these theories respectively 
on the problem of our study. Accordingly, the following prophe- 
cies will be discussed. (A) CHS. xxvui-xxxn; (B) x 5-34, x1v 24-27, 
xvi 12-14; cu. xvi; (C) xxi 1-14, xxi 15-25, xxm 1-15, 1 7-9. 


A. Cu. XXVII-XXXIII’ 


{t is usually assumed that the Isianic prophecies contained in 
this collection were delivered between 705 and 701, from the time 
that the leaders in Judah began to intrigue with Egypt in prepara- 
tion for revolt, up to the time of the invasion. If the latter 
assumption is correct, then these chapters form a very important 
source from which to derive information concerning conditions in 
Judah prior to the revolt. 

It is important, however, to take cognizance of the fact that even 
if this assumption is correct, there is no way of substantiating it. 
During the reign of Sargon, there were several periods of unrest, 
when rebellion was being fomented in Judah, when embassies were 


A Critical Source Study 81 


undoubtedly sent to Egypt—when it would have been possible for 
Isaiah to have delivered all or some of the anti-Egyptian addresses 
found in these chapters. The hypothesis that Judah intrigued with 
Egypt during the period that culminated in the revolt of Ashdod is 
confirmed by the fact that Sargon, in describing his campaign 
against that city, specifically alludes to Judah, together with the 
Philistines, Edomites and Moabites, sending presents to Pharaoh 
in order to induce him to join their confederation.’ It is also 
possible that the death of Ahaz and the accession of Hezekiah to 
the throne, may have marked a turning point in Judah’s attitude 
towards Assyria; and that the policy of hostility to Assyria and 
dependance upon Egypt was inaugurated at the very beginning of 
Hezekiah’s reign. If so, it is possible that some or all of the 
anti-Egyptian oracles might belong to as early a period as the 
reign of Shalmeneser, or else, to the early years of Sargon’s reign.’ 

The scholars, who believe that the pro-Assyrian and anti-Assyr- 
ian oracles could not have been delivered during the same period 
of the prophet’s career, are naturally inclined to favor the above 
hypotheses. Those scholars, however, who believe that some of 
the so-called pro-Assyrian oracles were delivered at the same time 
as the anti-Assyrian, that simultaneously with his warnings to his 
people, that the shortsighted policy of the Judean leaders would 
result in a serious calamity for Judah, he was anticipating an 
overwhelming disaster for the Assyrian hosts, have no interest in 
assigning the anti-Egyptian oracles to an earlier period. Similarly, 
those scholars, who believe that Isaiah’s attitude towards Assyria 
underwent a profound change during the invasion, have no reason 
for favoring an early date for these oracles. On the other hand, 
those scholars, who, in support of the theory that there were two 
campaigns of Sennacherib, maintain that during the crisis of 701, 
Isaiah was consistently pro-Assyrian and that all the anti-Assyrian 
oracles belong to a later period of the prophet’s life, naturally 
do not favor the view that all the pro-Assyrian oracles contained 
in this collection belong to the reign of Sargon or Shalmeneser. 
They prefer to place some or all during the early years of Senna- 
cherib. 

If Chapters XXVIII-xxxllI represent a collection of prophecies 
delivered during a brief period of time, then all the anti-Egyptian 


§2 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


oracles belong to the reign of Sennacherib or none does, and the 
date of all the oracles can be determined by determining the date 
of one. Scholars are divided concerning this question. 

Some scholars believe that these chapters represent a collection 
of prophecies made by Isaiah himself, during one period,* or that 
a nucleus was prepared by the prophet, and that to this nucleus 
were added other prophecies by his disciples, containing the same 
central thought." This collection is assumed to be the product of 
the order he received to inscribe his views in a book.* There is a 
difference of opinion concerning the implication of xxx 8." Some 
scholars believe that this verse refers to the eryptic message of 7b, 
others, that it refers to all the predictions of the same character he 
made at that time. 

Other scholars not only deny that these chapters contain a collec- 
tion of prophecies delivered at one time, but maintain that there 
ig no organic relation between the various oracles contained in 
this collection.* They are inclined to explain the unity underlying 
this collection as being something very artificial. From the fact 
that so many oracles start with the word °17 they infer that these 
chapters represent a collection of ‘1 prophecies and that the 
prophecies have no organic relation with one another. 


1. XXVIII 1-4 


From the above discussion, it is clear that it is not necessary 
to assume that all the prophecies contained in these chapters were 
delivered at one time. In fact, the contrary assumption is more 
natural, for in all likelihood, xxvm1 1-4 was delivered before 
the destruction of Samaria,’ and it is not probable that all the 
other prophecies contained in these chapters belong to so early a 
period. The inclusion of xxvin 1-4 in this collection does not 
necessarily prove, however, that this collection does not consist 
of prophecies delivered during one short period (either during the 
reign of Sargon or Sennacherib), because it may be argued that 
the oracle against Samaria was repeated,” on a later occasion, as a 
warning to the leaders in Judah that if they persist in following 
their headlong policy, they would meet the fate of Judah’s sister 
kingdom.” Several reasons may be attributed to the prophet for 
repeating an oracle—he may have been interested in emphasizing 


A Critical Source Study 83 


the similarity of conditions in Jerusalem to those that prevailed in 
Samaria, shortly before the fall of that city; or, he may have 
been motivated by the desire to remind his hearers that on a 
previous occasion, he had made a grim pronouncement, that that 
prediction had been only too realistically fulfilled, in order that 
his hearers should take more seriously the warning he was about 
to give them. xxv 7 tends to confirm this view, because xxvii 7 ff. 
seems to depend on xxvii 1-4. 

Wellhausen and Ehrlich go a step further. They deny the ne- 
cessity to presume that xxvilr 1-4 was originally delivered at an 
earlier period. They believe that this oracle refers to Jerusalem 
and not to Samaria. The reference to Samaria they interpret as a 
figure of speech. Kittel disagrees with this view, because the de- 
scription suits Samaria so much better than Jerusalem. This argu- 
ment does not possess very much force, because Isaiah, in symboliz- 
ing Jerusalem as Samaria, may have consistently carried his figure 
through by using description appropriate to the latter city. An- 
other argument that has been suggested as proof of an early date 
for the original delivery of this prophecy, is the vague reference to 
Assyria. it is not likely that Isaiah would have referred to the 
powerful Assyria in this vague manner, after Palestinians had so 
vividly experienced Assyrian power and cruelty. 


2. XXXII 9-14 


Scholars, who believe that during the crisis of 701, Isaiah was 
awaiting the visitation of Judgment, not only upon his own people, 
but also upon the Assyrian invaders, prefer to regard xxxu 9-14 
as an earlier oracle.” In this prophecy, the prophet anticipates a 
thorough devastation of the entire country, together with the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. It does not contain any reference to an ultimate 
disaster to Assyria. Can we assume that only a short interval of 
time separates this oracle from the anti-Assyrian oracles, and that 
during this brief period, Isaiah underwent a profound experience 
which led him to revise his philosophy of History? In other words, 
can we assume that xxx 9-14 represents Isaiah’s attitude between 
705-701 and that all the prophecies containing predictions against 
Assyria were made during the last stage of Sennacherib’s cam- 
paign? Or, is it necessary to assume that the two kinds of proph- 


84 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


ecies can only be reconciled with one another, if we assume that 
there were two crises; that during the first, Isaiah delivered those 
prophecies in which is described the doom of his own people, and 
during the second, those describing the doom of Assyria? 


3. XXX 27-33 


This last hypothesis is particularly helpful, in reconciling Isaiah 
xxx 27-33 with the anti-Judah oracles. In this oracle there is no 
reference to the fate of Judah—the poem concerns itself only with 
the exaltation and outbursts of joy that will break forth, when 
the Lord will appear to visit His judgment upon the hated enemy. 
But, because of the lack of sobriety, many scholars have questioned 
the Isianic genuineness of this oracle.” With this view, concur not 
only those scholars who find it difficult to harmonize this oracle 
with other oracles attributed to the period when Sennacherib’s 
third campaign took place, but also scholars who believe there 
were two campaigns.” 


4. XXIX 1-8 anp Cu. XXXI 


Whether we favor the view that all the anti-Judean predictions 
were made before a given point in time, and all the anti-Assyrian 
after that point, or that Isaiah was expecting the punishment of 
Assyria at the same time that he was anticipating Judah’s going 
through the crucible of suffering, depends in large measure upon 
our attitude to xxx1x 1-8 and to CH. Xxx1.” 

If we agree with Skinner that “the threat of disaster to Jerusalem 
is so intimately blended with the hope of her deliverance, that it 
is extremely difficult to disentangle them,” then we must accept 
his conclusion “that these passages reflect the tension in Isaiah’s 
mind at one point of his career—the conflict between a ‘fearful 
looking for of judgment’ even to the uttermost, and the assurance: 
of ultimate salvation of what was good in Israel.” Scholars, how- 
ever, who are unwilling to accept this conclusion, refuse to accept 
his premise.” By separating the passages of promise from the 
passages of threatening, they give to these passages a new com- 
plexion, which makes it possible to place upon them an altogether 
different construction.” 


A Critical Source Study 85 


Duhm regards xxx 1-4a as the Isianic oracle, and vv. 5-7" as a 
supplement on the part of the editor, who did not wish to leave 
the threat to Zion, God’s city, without consolatory conclusion. 
CH. XXxxI he conceives as a series of unrelated fragments rather than 
as a continuous prophecy. Vv. 1-3, when taken by themselves, repre- 
sent an anti-Egyptian oracle similar in character to xxx 1-17; vv. 4, 
5, 8, 9 which promise God’s protection of Jerusalem and predict 
the destruction of Assyria through God’s Personal intervention Duhm 
places in the same period of Isaiah’s prophecies as xxx 27-33.” 

Marti reaches a similar conclusion, but his analysis is different. By 
limiting xxix 1-8 to wv. 1-4a, 5c, 6 and omitting vv. 5, 7, 8, which 
he regards as later non-Isianic additions, he makes the sudden visita- 
tion of God’s judgment apply to Judah and not to Assyria.” xxx1 1-9 
Marti also regards as a composite. Vv. 1-3 he regards as parallel 
to xxx 1-3. V.4 he interprets as a threat to Jerusalem. The shep- 
herds are the Egyptians. Just as a lion does not let go his booty 
through fear of the shepherds, so the Lord will not let go Jerusalem 
because of the noise and lamentations of the Egyptians. The rest 
of the chapter Marti divides as follows: 5a (minus the first 
two words NiDY OMBYD) 5b, 8a, 9b he regards as a non-Isianic, anti- 
Assyrian oracle, related in character to xxx 27-33. (vv. 8b, 9a he 
does not regard as a continuation of 8a) ; vv. 6 and 7 he believes to 
be either an Isianic remnant or a marginal gloss. In either case, 
he assumes that they have been interposed and that 8a is a continua- 
tion of v. 5. 

Those who do not separate the verses containing the anti-Assyrian 
predictions from those containing the anti-Judean, but regard xxix 
1-8 and Ch. xxxI as continuous prophecy, must assign a very 
early date to Isaiah’s conviction that Assyria too must answer 
before the bar of Judgment, because xx1x lb implies that the 
danger is still very far off. The festivals are still being celebrated 
in the usual manner, and there seems to be no consciousness of 
danger. In fact, some scholars are inclined to believe that this 
oracle must have been delivered as early as the reign of Sargon, 
some time before Judah began to plan revolt.” 

An early date for Isaiah’s anti-Assyrian prophecies supports the 
contention of some scholars that I xxxvi 37ff. is a legendary 
story. If, long before there was any danger in Judah, Isaiah had 


86 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


predicted the inviolability of Zion, and if, during the siege, at a time 
when all hope of saving the city had been given up, this view 
had been reiterated by the prophet, then a sudden raising of the 
siege would be interpreted as the realisation of the prophet’s pre- 
diction, even if the raising of the siege were not accompanied by 
an annihilation of the Assyrian army, such as the prophet had 
anticipated. If the story, how Jerusalem had been saved at the 
very last moment, in accordance with the prophet’s predictions, 
would be told over and over again, people, in the course of time. 
would begin to believe that his entire prediction had been realised. 
In view of the fact, that Isaiah had predicted a great catastrophe 
to the Assyrian army, that this catastrophe would come suddenly 
and that it would take place on the soil of Judah—at the very 
moment when the coveted prize was about to fall into the hands 
of the Assyrian, there might evolve a story of a plague, similar 
to the one found in the Book of Kings. Such a story would event: 
ually become very deep-rooted and be accepted unquestioningly, 
even though it would not have an historic basis. This hypothesis 
is built upon a very logical chain of assumptions. Nevertheless, it 
does not present a very strong degree of probability. If the story 
of the plague is entirely legendary, and does not contain an historic 
kernel, it is hard to explain the coincidence that Herodotus, relying 
upon Egyptian sources, and altogether unfamiliar with the Hebrew 
tale should also imply that Sennacherib’s army met with a sudden, 
overwhelming disaster. 


In the previous discussion, we have seen to what different con- 
clusions scholars can come if they regard a given section as con- 
tinuous prophecy, or if they divide it into separate oracles; if they 
regard the section as Isianic in its entirety, or if they look upon 
certain verses as interpolations of later writers. There will naturally 
be a similar difference of opinion concerning the interpretation of 
oracles of which the authorship is in doubt—if Isianic, they have 
one implication—if non-Isianic, another. Isianic authorship has 
been questioned concerning the following: xxvii 5, 6; xxix 16-24, 
Xxx, 18-265) xxxit 1-32 xxx 9} (CHA XXII. 

(a) xxvnot 5, 6—if Isianic, and if connected with xxvui 1-4, 
then xy py». must refer to the destruction of Samaria. Is it 


os 
~~ 
~] 


A Critical Source Study 


likely that Isaiah conceived Judah (together with the survivors of 
Samaria) as the Holy Remnant, and that he anticipated a Messianic 
regeneration as the result of the destruction of Samaria? More- 
over, is it probable that as early as some time before 722 Isaiah 
already anticipated an Assyrian defeat?” An affirmative answer 
to the latter question would have a significant implication for the 
interpretation of other oracles discussed in this chapter. Most 
scholars escape this implication because they do not regard these 
verses as Isianic. 

(6) xxix 16-24; xxx 18-26. Most scholars are agreed that these 
two oracles are related and that if one passage is assigned to a later 
period, it is necessary to do so in regard to the other, because they 
were probably written by the same author. Neither passage contains 
references to a historic situation later than the time of the prophet. 
The Isianic authorship has been questioned solely on the ground of 
linguistic style and thought, i.e., upon the suspicion that the underly- 
ing conceptions of the prophecy and that the similes used represent a 
later age than that of Isaiah. Whenever the authenticity of a passage 
is questioned on such ground, there is room for difference of opinion 
and the decision is largely subjective. ! 

If xxix 16-24 is regarded as Isianic™ and a sequel to xxix 15, 
then xx1x 15 implies that Isaiah opposes the Egyptian alliance, 
not because he is afraid of the outcome of the alliance, but because 
he appreciates the futility of human effort to accomplish that which 
it has been purposed to bring about by Divine intervention. Ac- 
cordingly, the point of view underlying xx1x 15ff. does not differ 
from that underlying cH. xvi, and there is no room for the 
contention maintained by many scholars that CH. xvIII was neces- 
sarily written at a later time. In other words, Isaiah must be 
conceived as anticipating punishment for the Assyrian tyrant at the 
time that he was busily engaged in denouncing the secret intrigues 
which were made in preparation for revolt. It becomes necessary, 
therefore, to ascribe the anti-Egyptian predictions, which do not 
harmonize with this view to an earlier period. If xx1x 16-24 is 
regarded as un-Isianic, no inferences can be based upon it. 

(c) xxxt 1-8. Many scholars have questioned the Isianic 
authorship of this oracle, because the King is idealized less than the 
ideal king described in 1x 1-6 and x1 1-4. This objection has been 


88 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


answered by the assumption that in this oracle Isaiah is not referring 
to a Messianic King, but to Hezekiah. Another answer that has been 
suggested, is that in this oracle, Isaiah is not concerned with the King, 
but with the new social order which will follow the destruction of 
Assyria and the deliverance of Jerusalem. There can be no doubt, 
that at the time that Isaiah was looking forward to the visitation of 
Judgment upon Assyria, he sincerely anticipated that the Assyrian 
crisis would culminate in a social regeneration, and that in the new 
Judah, which would come forth out of the crucible of suffering, 
justice and righteousness would prevail.” Another argument that 
has been given in support of the theory that this passage is not 
Isianic, is that the style of vv. 6-8 is not at all characteristic of 
Isaiah. This argument loses all of its force, if we agree with Duhm 
that these verses represent a gloss, which has been added by a late 
editor to a genuine oracle of Isaiah. 

(d) xxxm 19. If the forest refers to Assyria and the city to 
Jerusalem, then this passage, if Isianic, clearly indicates that Isaiah 
anticipated the humiliation of Jerusalem, simultaneously with the 
fall of Assyria. Most scholars, however, do not regard this verse 
as Isianic. It certainly does not belong in its present position be- 
tween v. 18 and v. 20. It is also possible to interpret the forest as a 
reference to Judah and not to Assyria. Accordingly, this verse con- 
tains no allusion to Judgment upon Assyria. 

(e) cH. xxxim. It is of special importance from the point of 
view of this study, to determine whether cH. xxx is Isianic. The 
tyrant is referred to in this chapter as 43,5 . Those who assume 
that the tyrant in question is Sennacherib, interpret the appellation 
as a reference to Sennacherib’s demand for the surrender of the 
city, after he had agreed to accept tribute. If it is true that Isaiah 
was shocked by Sennacherib’s failure to comply with the condition 
of the stipulated agreement, and as a result addressed CH. XXXII 
to him, then this chapter may be regarded as the turning point in 
his attitude towards Assyria.” In accordance with this hypothesis, 
up to that moment Isaiah had not concerned himself with the fate 
of Assyria. Assyria was to Isaiah the instrument God had chosen 
to devastate Judah, so that through punishment, Judah might become 
God-conscious. The relation of God to this tool had not concerned 
him. Sennacherib’s act of perfidy, however, directed the prophet’s 


A Critical Source Study 89 


attitude to the problem. As a result, we have his pronouncement that 
judgment would be visited upon Assyria (x 5-34). Accordingly, it 
must be assumed that all the anti-Assyrian prophecies were delivered 
during the last stage of the campaign, after Sennacherib had received 
Hezekiah’s tribute, and in spite of that fact, had demanded the sur- 
render of Jerusalem. 

This hypothesis is supported by the explicit statement in v.8, 
that the tyrant had broken the covenant. The advocates of this 
hypothesis also use v.7 to support their theory, but the situation 
implied in v.7 is not clear. To find a reason for the weeping 
of the ambassadors, and to subsequently use that reason as a 
support of the hypothesis, is a far fetched method of arguing. If 
this chapter is declared un-Isianic, the whole structure, which has 
been built upon this chapter as a basis, falls to the ground. Most 
critics do not regard this chapter as Isianic, on the ground that. 
the style, images and conceptions are not Isianic. The favorite 
view is that the unnamed tyrant is Antiochus Eupator.” 


B. ANTI-ASSYRIAN PROPHECIES.* 
l. X 5-34 


Some scholars believe that this prophecy marks the turning 
point in Isaiah’s attitude towards Assyria and that it was delivered 
at the time that he first became convinced that Assyria too would 
be subjected to Divine Judgment. When was this decision reached? 
The answer to this question is of paramount importance for a 
critical consideration of the oracles of Isaiah, from the point of 
view of their source value. 

It would be natural to assume that Isaiah’s attention was directed 
to the problem of Assyria’s place in the Providential scheme 
of History at the time when Israel, Judah’s sister kingdom, was 
destroyed. At that time, he had occasion to observe, at close range, 
the Assyrian cruel and savage methods of warfare. Moreover, 
Isaiah would have undoubtedly been profoundly influenced by con- 
temptuous reference to the God of Israel—by the Assyrian placing 
of that God in the same category as the gods of the other peoples, 
whom it had conquered. The recognition that Assyria was not 
conscious of her Divine mission, and that the Assyrian conquests 


90 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


were not motivated by a moral purpose, but rather by the lust 
for power, would have brought the prophet face to face with the 
problem of justifying the Divine use of an immoral means for a 
moral end. Consequently, he would have been compelled to re- 
consider and to re-analyse his philosophy of history. A profounder 
conception of the Divine relationship to Assyria, “the rod of His 
wrath”, would have naturally developed out of such a reconsider- 
ation. 

The chief objection to this theory is the reference in v. 9 to 
the capture of Carcemish, which took place in 717. The force of 
this objection is not as strong as most scholars seem to think, 
because there is no reason for identifying the allusion with the 
capture of Carcemish in 717. Carcemish was conquered several 
times. It was reduced to an Assyrian province as early as 740. 
A much more powerful argument against 721 as the date of this 
prophecy is the fact that at the time of the revolt of Ashdod (711), 
the prophet was anticipating the Assyrian conquest of Egypt and 

thiopia (CH. xx) and his attitude, at that time, was not at all 
consistent with the psychological change which this prophecy pre- 
supposes. it is, therefore, safe to assume that the prophecy was 
delivered some time after 710, either during the reign of Sargon or 
Sennecherib. 

In some of the oracles contained within CH. XXVIII-XXXIII, 
Isaiah expresses views, which can be reconciled with the view 
expressed in x 5-34 only with great difficulty. Most scholars, 
therefore, agree that the prophecy we are discussing, as well as 
the other anti-Assyrian prophecies, must have been delivered at a 
later date than those in which he denounces the alliance with Egypt, 
and predicts the terrible consequences that will follow the attempt 
to throw off the Assyrian yoke. As has already been shown, there 
is no way of definitely establishing the date of the anti-Egyptian 
oracles. Those scholars, who place them during the early years 
of Sennacherib’s reign, while the preparations for the revolt were 
taking place, must necessarily assume that x 5-34 is later than 
702. The advocates of the theory that there were two campaigns 
of Sennacherib, usually presume that Isaiah changed his attitude 
towards Assyria sometime between the two campaigns. They would, 


A Critical Source Study 91 


therefore, place this and kindred prophecies in the first decade 
of the 7th century. 

Those, who believe that there was only one campaign, claim 
that Isaiah’s change in attitude took place sometime during the 
invasion. The theory based on cH. xxxi, that this change was 
caused by an act of perfidy on the part of Sennacherib, has already 
been discussed. In this connection it is important to note that 
if this oracle had been motivated by Sennacherib’s perfidy, the 
prophet, instead of laying stress upon Assyrian pride or boastfulness, 
would have laid it on Assyrian treachery and unreliability. The 
nature of the imaginary speech Isaiah places in the mouth of 
the Assyrian King makes it much more tempting to assume that 
the specific circumstance, which occasioned the prophet’s outburst 
of indignation against the Assyrian, was the boastful speech of 
Rabshakeh. The resemblance between vv. 9-1] and xxxv1 18-20 
is too close to be accidental. Moreover, it would be difficult to find 
a more logical moment for Isaiah to realize that the Assyrian had 
no appreciation whatsoever of his mission, than the moment in 
which he heard the boastful Assyrian attribute all his success to his 
own prowess, and blasphemed the “living God of Israel”’. 

Those scholars, however, who doubt the historicity of Rabshakeh’s 
address, can easily reverse the supposition; instead of assuming that 
x 9-11 is based on an address actually delivered by an ambassador 
of the Assyrian king, they can assume that the author of the 
imaginary speech attributed to Rabshakeh, in CH. xxxvi, used 
the imaginary speech in cH. x as his model. There is another 
possibility, viz. that vv. 9-11 reflect a customary manner of speech 
that Assyrian emissaries used in argument, when trying to convince 
cities to surrender. If so, no inference can be drawn in regard 
to the historicity of Rabshakeh’s address. There is no specific 
evidence which supports the last theory. 

The most common assumption is that Isaiah’s change of heart 
took place while Sennacherib was trampling and destroying city 
after city in Southern Judah. In the hour of his countrymen’s 
grief, there was no room for denunciatory addresses—he was at 
one with his people. During those critical moments he conceived 
a deeper insight into his own philosophy of history. Objection 
to so late a date for the beginning of Isaiah’s anti-Assyrian attitude 


92 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


may be made on the basis of vv. 28-34. In view of the fact that 
the route described in vv. 28-34 does not correspond with the 
route actually taken by Sennacherib and his army, this oracle can 
not be post-eventum. Consequently, it is necessary to postulate that 
this oracle was composed at the very beginning of Sennacherib’s 
third campaign, at the very latest, during the campaign in Phoenicia. 

Vv. 28-34, however, do not constitute an integral part of the 
foregoing. They represent an independent oracle, and there is 
considerable difference of opinion amongst scholars concerning the 
relation of this oracle to those that precede it. Some scholars regard 
x 5-34 as a series of oracles representing one point of view, all 
of which were delivered within a brief period of time, and welded 
together, perhaps by the prophet himself, into a literary unity. Other 
scholars deny not only oratorical unity, but literary unity as well. 
They regard x 5-34 as a composite of a number of independent 
oracles, which have very little organic relation with one another.” 

There are some scholars who contend that x 28-34 does not refer 
to the Assyrians at all. They assume that it was delivered during 
the crisis of 735 and that the reference is to the Syro-Ephraimitic 
armies. If this view is correct, then this oracle has no relation 
whatsoever to the problem of our study, and can not be used as a 
means of determining the date of x 5-19. 

The main support for the last named theory is the opinion of the 
scholars, who maintain it, that the route is too vividly described to be 
imaginary. We know the route taken by the Assyrians; we do not 
know the route taken by the Syro-Ephraimites, therefore if the de- 
scription is derived from experience, it can not refer to the former— 
it may refer to the latter. Schmidt accepts the premise stipulated in 
this hypothesis, but he does not accept the conclusion. He agrees 
with the scholars who entertain this hypothesis, that the description 
is too vivid to be entirely imaginary—and at the same time he agrees 
with the scholars who place this oracle at the beginning of Sen- 
nacherib’s campaign. He believes that the Syro-Ephraimitic hosts 
followed this route, a very difficult one, but extremely well-suited 
for a surprise attack. Schmidt thinks that Isaiah portrayed the 
Assyrians as following this route for the sake of dramatic effect in 
order to recall the bitter anguish of those days.” 

Just as vv. 28-34 present difficulties to the advocates of the theory 





A Critical Source Study 93 


that there was only one campaign, by necessitating an early date for 
the anti-Assyrian point of view,” so vv. 28-34 present considerable 
difficulty to the advocates of the theory that there were two cam- 
paigns of Sennacherib in Palestine. If the second campaign was 
an outgrowth of a campaign in Arabia, Isaiah’s description of the 
Assyrian advance could neither be a description post eventum, nor 
an imaginary anticipation. If it is conceded that x 28-34 was an 
oracle delivered during the first campaign, then there is no room 
for the theory that all the anti-Assyrian oracles belong to the 
second, and that during the first, Isaiah was consistently pro- 
Assyrian. On the other hand, if the concession is not made, the 
northern route is a challenge, which demands explanation. 


The problem does not exist for those who favor the view discussed 
above, that Isaiah is not referring to the Assyrians, but to the 
Syrians and Ephraimites. The difficulty also disappears for those 
who accept the radical suggestion put forth by Gray. Gray sepa- 
rates vv. 33 and 34 from 28-32. Asa result, vv. 28-32 ceases to be a 
part of an anti-Assyrian oracle. Instead of the usual assumption, 
that the prophet is trying to show how Assyria will be foiled at the 
last moment, when it is almost within reach of the coveted prize, in 
accordance with Gray’s analysis of the oracle into two separate, 
distinct parts, it becomes possible to assume that Isaiah is interested 
in describing the rapidity with which Assyria will accomplish 
its purpose, or else to arouse his countrymen to a sense of the 
immediacy of the danger. In either case, the oracle belongs to the 
period when Isaiah still had confidence in the power of Assyria, and 
was anticipating a successful suppression of the rebellion. 


2. XIV 24-27 


Some scholars believe that this is a misplaced fragment, that 
it was originally part of x 5-34. Those who regard x 5-34 as a 
series of related oracles, would be inclined to regard this as 
another independent oracle delivered during the same period, as 
the oracles contained in x 5-34. Regardless of any theory one 
may accept concerning the relation of this oracle to x 5-19 (or 
x 5-34), it must be admitted that this oracle was. delivered at some 
time subsequent to Isaiah’s decision, that Assyria would receive 


94 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 
Divine punishment for its transgressions. In this oracle, the anti- 
Assyrian view is expressed in clear and unmistakable terms. 

The most important element in this prophecy is the explicit 
reference to Judah, as the place where Assyria would meet its 
doom. The most natural explanation for the prophet’s assumption, 
that Zion would be chosen by the Lord for the consummation of 
His Plan, is that the prophet believed, that if the Assyrian catas- 
trophe occurred in Judah, it would be most manifest to all the 
nations of the world, that this catastrophe had come as a result 
of the will of the Lord, the God of Judah. “The purpose, which 
the Lord has purposed”, (v. 26 & 27) may be construed as referring 
to the breaking of the strong and arrogant Assyria as a demon- 
stration to mankind of the Divine role in human history. 

The above explanation presupposes a priori reasoning, a sub- 
jective desire as the basis of Isaiah’s conviction, that the visitation 
of Judgment upon Assyria would take place in Judah. If we 
assume that Isaiah reached his conclusion empirically, that this 
oracle represents a rationalization of experience, then we must 
place upon this oracle a somewhat different construction. 

If this oracle was delivered during the late stages of Senna- 
cherib’s campaign, at the time when Sennacherib’s army was devas- 
tating the entire country, then the emphasis upon the hills of Judah, 
as the place where the Assyrian would meet his doom, may have 
represented an attempt, on the part of the prophet, to console 
his discouraged compatriots. If [fsaiah had previously delivered 
a number of anti-Assyrian oracles,” as a result of which the 
people had been expecting for some time a miraculous manifestation 
of Divine power, the capture of Lachish, the blockade of Jerusalem, 
the despoliation of the entire country, must have been very dis- 
heartening to the people of Judah. The promise of a deliverance 
must have appeared to them as a vain promise, and there was 
probably little hope of escaping the fate of the allied Philistine 
cities. Under such circumstances, it would have been very natural 
for the prophet, confident that he had properly understood the 
Divine plan of History, and still convinced that the fate he had 
predicted for the Assyrians would overtake them, to stress the 
hills of Judah as the place where the Assyrian judgment would 
take place, in order to indicate that that which is happening to 


A Critical Source Study 95 


Judah is not contrary to the Divine plan, but rather a part of 
the plan—a prelude to the great event. 

In other words, it may be argued, that the “purpose, which the 
Lord has purposed’, is a two fold one,—that it refers to the 
punishment of Judah, as well as of Assyria,—that the reason why 
Assyria shall be broken in the land of Judah, is in order to 
bring about the realization of the first before the second. This 
interpretation might be favored by those, who believe that some 
of the minatory prophecies were delivered at the same time as 
the anti-Assyrian. There is no intimation, however, that the “pur- 
pose” is intended to imply a double signification; consequently, 
no one can contend, that this oracle supports that view in any way, 
or presents any special difficulty to those who believe that the 
prophecies, in which Isaiah predicts the ravaging of Judah, belong 
to an earlier period than those, in which he predicts an Assyrian 
catastrophe. 


3. XVII 12-14 


There is considerable difference of opinion amongst scholars 
concerning this short oracle. Some do not separate vv. 12f. from 
the preceding. If so, the people, whose gruesome fate is so vividly 
described, are the Syrians and Ephraimiies, and this oracle has no 
bearing on the problem of this study. It is more natural, however, 
to assume that the reference is to the Assyrian hosts, than to the 
Syrians and Ephraimites. Among the scholars, who accept the 
latter view, some are inclined to regard vv. 12ff. as an introduction 
to CH. Xviil,~ whereas others maintain that xvii 1 is undoubtedly 
the true beginning of an oracle, and xvi 14 a natural ending, and 
therefore regard these three verses as an independent oracle, or 
as a fragment of an independent poem. 


As for the date of this oracle, there is room for a wide range 
of difference of opinion. It may be assumed, that Isaiah hears 
the noise of the Assyrian army in his imagination, while the 
Assyrian army is still very far off, or else, en route to Palestine. 
It may also be assumed, that the invading army is already in the 
land,“ and that Isaiah’s simile is based on the impression, that the 
Assyrian army made upon him when viewed from close range. It 


96 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


may also be assumed, with an equal degree of reasonableness, that 
this oracle is not a prediction, but a post-eventum comment, in which 
the prophet portrays, in a few bold strokes, the great contrast in 
the Assyrian hosts” before and after the terrible catastrophe de- 
scribed in II Kings x1x 35. To those who accept the last interpre- 
tation, this oracle would be a confirmation of the historicity of 
the story of the plague. On the other hand, those scholars, who 
are not ready to impute any historic value to this story, can point 
to this passage as the source from which the legend developed.” 
They can argue that Isaiah’s implication, that the destruction of 
Assyria would be very sudden (one night), intended for dramatic 
effect, was taken literally by later generations, and became the basis 
for the belief, that the Assyrian hosts were annihilated in one night 
by a terrible plague. We have already seen how such an evolu- 
tion might have been possible, despite the sufferings which the 
Judeans endured as a result of Sennacherib’s invasion, if the sudden 
raising of the siege was regarded at the time, as a vindication of 
the prophet, who, throughout the crisis, had boldly proclaimed 
the inviolability of Zion. 

There is a school of Bible students, who regard all literal 
fulfillments of prophetic predictions with suspicion. They believe 
that either the predictions have been tampered with, in order to 
make them conform with the course of events, or vice-versa. It 
is important to note that the prediction in this oracle is very 
vague, and that the relation between the prediction and the story 
of the plague is implicit, rather than explicit.” 


4. CHAPTER XVIII 


This prophecy does not contain any direct allusions,” conse- 
quently, its meaning is not clear. The most common assumption in 
regard to the background of this prophecy is that Isaiah is ad- 
dressing Ethiopian” ambassadors, who have come to Jerusalem, in 
order to proffer assistance to Hezekiah, in his struggle against 
Assyria. Isaiah respectfully declines this offer, because human 
assistance is not needed. Judah is about to receive Divine assist- 
ance. The inhabitants of the entire world” are called upon to 
witness the spectacle, when the mighty, seemingly invincible Assyria 
will fall, through Divine intervention.” 


A Critical Source Study 97 


In accordance with the above interpretation, Isaiah stresses in 
this prophecy the same thought, as he does in the anti-Egyptian 
o1acles considered previously, viz., the futility of reliance upon 
human assistance. Nevertheless, there is a marked difference in 
his attitude towards Ethiopa and Egypt. In the one case, his 
tone is respectful; and in the other, contemptuous. It is possible to 
explain Isaiah’s difference in attitude by assuming that the anti- 
Egyptian oracles were delivered some time prior to the Ethiopian 
conquest of Egypt, during the period of Egypt’s weakness under 
the rule of the Delta dynasts, and that this prophecy was de- 
livered some time after that event. If we accept Breasted’s date 
for the accession of Shabaka (712), then Isaiah’s attitude during 
the revolt of Ashdod (711) as revealed in CHAPTER xx, does not 
conform with the view that Isaiah’s attitude towards the Nile coun- 
try changed as a result of Shabaka’s conquest. The last objection 
can easily be met by the assumption that the change of attitude 
did not take place at the beginning of Shabaka’s reign, but some- 
time during the reign. Isaiah may have remembered the conquests 
of Piankhi and his failure to maintain his control of either lower 
or upper Egypt, after his retirement to his own capital, Napata, 
near the fourth cataract; and as a result, have anticipated during 
the early years of Shabaka’s rule, a similar collapse of the cen- 
tralized government, and a return to the division of authority between 
rival struggling dynasts. Those scholars, who believe that there 
were two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine, are inclined to 
place some of the oracles stressing Egypt’s weakness as late as 
705-702 and to assume that this prophecy was delivered during 
the reign of the powerful Tirhakah (694-667 or 689-662). 

Is it possible to determine the most probable date for the delivery 
of this prophecy, on the basis of internal evidence? Is Isaiah 
addressing an imaginary embassy, or is he dealing with a real 
historic situation? In favor of the former view, it may be argued, 
that had Isaiah been addressing his remarks to foreign ambassadors, 
he would have made specific mention of his declining the prof- 
fered assistance, and he would have described his reasons for 
doing so more explicitly. Since [Isaiah was not an official spokes- 
man for Hezekiah, it was not his business to accept or to decline. 
Consequently, his remarks to the ambassadors may be construed 


98 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


as advisory suggestions to King Hezekiah, and to the Judean officials. 
Such suggestions, however, necessitate the presupposition, that there 
were Ethiopian ambassadors in Jerusalem at the time that this 
prophecy was delivered. If so, what assumption can be made 
concerning the occasion, which prompted the sending of an Ethi- 
opian embassy to Judah? There are several possibilities, in addi- 
tion to those discussed above. 

(a.) In 705, the year of Sargon’s death, in order to induce 
Hezekiah to join the other Palestinian states in a revolt against 
Assyria. [or those who place the anti-Egyptian oracles contained 
in CH. XXvil-xxxuI during the reign of Sargon, this answer 
may be acceptable; but for those, who place some of these oracles 
in the period during which the plans for the revolt were being 
made, this answer would imply that cH. xvilt and these oracles 
were synchronous. It has already been noted above, that there 
is a very decided difference in the tone, in accordance with which 
the Nile country is alluded to—consequently, it is dificult to believe 
that cH. xvii and the anti-Egyptian oracles found in Chapters 
XXVII-XXX11I were delivered during the same period. 

(b.) After Sennacherib’s campaign in the West had started, 
but during a very early stage, while Sennacherib was still in Syria 
or Northern Palestine. In accordance with this assumption, the 
purpose of the embassy was to promise aid. Many scholars favor 
this view, because the calm tone of the prophet, and the lack of 
passionate indignation, which marks so many of his other utter- 
ances during the crisis, seem to imply that this prophecy was 
delivered at a time, when there was no imminent danger, long 
before the tramp of the Assyrian hosts had been heard in Judah. 
Nevertheless, in this oracle, we see the prophet already fully con- 
vinced of the ultimate outcome of the invasion. Is it safe, on the 
basis of the above assumptions, to decide that Isaiah reached the 
conclusion expressed in his anti-Assyrian oracles, some time before 
the Assyrian invasion of Palestine, or else, during a very early 
stage of that invasion, long before the blockade of Jerusalem? 

Those who favor this view, can present a different explanation 
than that suggested above, for the respectful references to the 
country from which the ambassadors came, so markedly different 
from the contemptuous allusions to the Nile country in the anti- 


A Critical Source Study 99 


Egyptian oracles. They can argue, that in the anti-Egyptian oracles, 
Isaiah was trying to dissuade his countrymen from revolting; that 
Isaiah knew that the war party based their hopes for success upon 
the assistance they would receive from Egypt, and that therefore, 
the most effective counter-argument he could give to the war party 
was to stress the weakness and impotence of Egypt. The mission 
of the Ethiopian ambassadors, on the other hand, was not to stimu- 
late revolt,—the revolt, in accordance with this hypothesis, was 
already an accomplished fact; their purpose was benevolent, to 
promise Hezekiah assistance in his hour of need; there was no 
reason, at this time, for Isaiah to be indignant or scornful. He 
was ready to decline the Ethiopian offer, not because of any ob- 
jection to the Ethiopian attitude, but because he regarded all human 
assistance as superfluous. (“Asshur would fall with the sword, 
but not of man”;) there was no reason, therefore, why the Ethi- 
opians should not be addressed in diplomatic, courteous language. 

(c) After the battle of Eltekeh. Most scholars refuse to en- 
tertain this answer as a possibility. Nevertheless, this answer 
is by no means, an impossible one. For those scholars, who 
believe that at Eltekeh, Sennacherib met only a small contingent 
of Egyptian and Ethiopian troops, and that upon the approach of 
a new Ethiopian army, under the leadership of Tirhakah the 
nephew of the King Shabaka, Sennacherib retreated, it would be 
a confirmation of the correctness of their interpretation, if it could 
be proven that, after the battle of Eltekeh, Shabaka sent ambas- 
sadors to Hezekiah, informing him that he was sending a second 
army to his assistance. If CH. xviii is a prophecy uttered after 
the defeat of the Allies at Eltekeh, the calm tone of the prophet 
is quite remarkable, and represents an eloquent testimony to the 
intensity of his faith in his own reading of the Divine Plan of 
History. It is very largely on account of this tone, and because 
of the absence of any indication that Judah was facing a crisis, 
that most scholars regard the supposition that the Ethiopian em- 
bassy was sent after the battle of Eltekeh, as an untenable one. 

If we accept the second answer, and if we interpret the figures 
in vv. 4-6 to mean that before the Lord will carry out His design 
upon the Assyrian army, He will calmly look on and allow Assyria 
to carry out its designs at the expense of the helpless Judeans,” 


100 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


then we must conclude that even before the Assyrian devastation 
of Judah began, Isaiah already anticipated a period of intense 
suffering for Judah, and had predicted that the Assyrian disaster 
would come at the height of the Judean crisis, at the very last 
moment, when all hope of deliverance had been given up. In 
accordance with this interpretation, it is not necessary to postulate 
that at one time Isaiah was pro-Assyrian, and at another time 
anti-Assyrian. It is very possible, that to Isaiah, these two groups 
of prophecies were not contradictory, but supplementary. The 
suffering of the Judeans at the hands of the Assyrians, was as 
necessary a part of the Divine scheme, as the ultimate frustration 
of the Assyrian design to annihilate the Judean state. We may 
assume, that during the early stages of his career, he interpreted 
the Assyrian advance, as a means that God had chosen to punish 
sinful peoples; that after a time, he became convinced that Assyria 
too is responsible to God and that its day of Judgment is bound 
to come; that when he began to feel that that day was drawing 
near, he made that thought central in his prophecies, but that he 
did not deviate from the central thought of his earlier prophecies, 
viz., that Judah must go through the crucible of suffering, in orde1 
that there may evolve a Holy Remnant. Accordingly, there is 
no stage of Isaiah’s career, at which it is possible to say, “He is 
no longer troubled by doubts of his people’s moral condition.” 

Those scholars, who are unwilling to accept the above conclusion, 
do not need to accept the premises upon which it is based. In fact, by 
starting out with the premise, that the anti-Assyrian point of view 
developed during the crisis, they would conclude, that this oracle 
could not have been delivered before the danger was imminent. The 
calm tone they would explain by the intensity of the prophet’s 
conviction concerning the ultimate outcome of the crisis. The 
simile, implying that the expected doom to Assyria would take 
place at the very last moment, they would explain as an attempt 
on the part of Isaiah to harmonise his prediction concerning the 
ultimate outcome with existing conditions. We are thus once more 
confronted with a vicious circle. 


— a 


A Critical Source Study 101 


C. MISCELLANEOUS PROPHECIES®* 
1. XXIII 1-14. 


AN ORACLE ON THE DESTRUCTION OF TYRE. 


If it could be proved that this prophecy was delivered in 701, 
while Sennacherib was engaged in suppressing the revolt in Phoeni- 
cia, then this prophecy would become a very important source 
for the reconstruction of the story of Sennacherib’s campaign in 
Syria and Palestine. It would help to confirm the suspicion ex- 
pressed in the first chapter of this study, that the failure of the 
Assyrian annalist to mention Tyre was deliberate, in order to avoid 
the inclusion of an unfavorable element in his account—the story 
of an unsuccessful siege. If we regard xxmi 1-14, as a prophecy 
delivered during the campaign, we must presuppose a siege of 
Tyre. It is not possible to assume that Isaiah pictured, in his 
imagination, the complete destruction of the joyous city, before an 
attempt was made to capture the city. This, in turn, would tend 
to strengthen the belief that the Assyrian annalist did not describe 
the events connected with the campaign in Judah in their proper 
sequence, in order to avoid revealing the true cause of the difference 
in treatment accorded to Hezekiah and the leaders of the anti- 
Assyrian party in the Philistine cities. 

It is not possible, however, to present any convincing evidence, 
in support of the supposition, that this prophecy belongs to the 
period with which this study is concerned. The historic allusions 
are very vague; there is, consequently, room for many different 
theories concerning the probable background of this prophecy. Some 
scholars, in trying to determine the historic circumstances which 
called forth this prophecy, limit themselves to possible situations 
within the life-time of Isaiah. Other scholars see no reason for 
such limitation. The linguistic evidence does not favor one view 
or the other—the style and choice of words are not sufficiently 
characteristic of Isaiah to indicate clearly that the oracle is Isianic, 
nor are they sufficiently different from the Isianic, to make it 
necessary to assume that they are not Isianic. 

If this prophecy represents a lyrica] reaction of the prophet 
post eventum, it must be a very late prophecy, because Alexander 
was the first to capture Tyre. Duhm and Marti assume that the 


102 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


original poem dealt with the destruction of Sidon, and that through 
an error of a late supplementer, it was mistaken for an oracle 
on Tyre. Accordingly, they assume that the background of this 
prophecy is the frightful chastisement inflicted upon Phoenicia by 
Artaxerxes Ochus, as a result of which Sidon was almost destroyed. 
If this prophecy is interpreted as an anticipatory prediction, which 
was not realized, it may have been composed during Nebuchad- 
nezzar’s thirteen year siege of Tyre (585-573), during the same 
period that Ezekiel’s prophecies concerning Tyre were composed ;” 
or, during the reign of Shalmeneser, who, according to Josephus, 
(quoting Menander whose history, Josephus claims, was based on 
the archives of Tyre) besieged Tyre for five years; or in 701, 
during Sennacherib’s invasion of Phoenicia. If any one but the 
last hypothesis is correct, this oracle has no bearing on the prob- 
lems involved in this study. 

Those scholars, who believe that this oracle is Isianic, must 
necessarily limit themselves to the last two suppositions. Many 
scholars are skeptical concerning the correctness of the assertion 
that Shalmeneser besieged Tyre. They believe that there is a con- 
fusion of the text concerning the name of the Assyrian king, and 
that it is very possible, that the king originally referred to in the 
Tyrian source, upon which Menander based his account, was Senna- 
cherib. But there is nothing to back up this assumption, and 
therefore we cannot build upon it. The fact that there is nothing 
in the Assyrian sources to indicate that there was an invasion of 
Phoenicia during the reign of Shalmeneser proves nothing, since 
no inscriptions from the reign of Shalmeneser have come down 
to us. 


7 SAT ae 
An INVECTIVE AGAINST THE PRIME MINISTER 


The source value of this oracle consists in the fact that it 
indicates that some time before Rabshakeh’s demand for the sur- 
render of Jerusalem, there occurred a change in Hezekiah’s cabinet. 
During the negotiations with Rabshakeh, Shebna occupies a sec- 
ondary position; the most important position is held by Eliakim. 
At the time that this prohecy was delivered, Shebna was the prime 


A Critical Source Study 103 


minister, and Isaiah was looking forward to Shebna’s being deposed 
and replaced by Eliakim. 

Isaiah’s vehement invectives against Shebna and lavish praise 
of Eliakim, have been used as a basis for the inference, that the 
former was the leader of the pro-Egyptian party, whom the prophet 
denounces so bitterly in the anti-Egyptian oracles, and the latter 
the leader of the opposing party. Accordingly, special significance 
must be attached to the change in Hezekiah’s cabinet; it must be 
interpreted as a reversal of policy. It would have been very natural, 
after the defeat of the allies at Eltekeh, at the time when the 
entire country was being devastated by the Assyrians, to depose 
the minister,” whose policy had brought about the calamity and to 
set up in his place the leader of the party that had counselled 
against the rebellion. 

For those scholars, who believe that Isaiah experienced a change 
in attitude some time during the Assyrian crisis, this hypothesis 
suggests a likely moment for such a change. While Shebna and 
the pro-Egyptian party were in power, it was necessary for Isaiah 
to picture, in darkest terms, the outcome of the policy of the party 
in power, but when that party was discredited, and a change of 
administration had taken place, and one whom Isaiah favored had 
been appointed Prime Minister, there was no longer any need of 
denunciations and it was possible for him to direct his attention 
to the place of Assyria in the Providential scheme of history, and 
to its ultimate fate. 

It is interesting to note, in connection with the above hypothesis, 
that in this invective against Shebna, there is not the slightest refer- 
ence to a pro-EKgyptian policy, or to an effort to foment rebellion 
against Assyria. The only stated offense is his building for him- 
self a large sepulchre. Since this offense would hardly have merited 
such terrible invective, it may be assumed, that this was merely 
the occasion, that the real offense was the suicidal policy, which 
he had caused the nation to adopt. It is possible, that an intrigue 
with Egypt would have merited in the prophet’s eyes such an 
epithet as, “Thou shame of thy lord’s house,”—but it is quite a 
different matter to assert, that this epithet referred to such an in- 
trigue. In fact, if it did, it is hard to account for the fact that 
Isaiah made no specific reference. 


104 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


3. XXII 1-15 


A REBUKE TO THE INHABITANTS OF JERUSALEM 


There is a wide divergence of opinion amongst scholars con- 
cerning this oracle. Interpreters have come to different conclusions, 
because some believe it to be a literary unit, whereas others main- 
tain that it contains extraneous elements, which represent interpola- 
tions of later writers; and still others assume that it consists of two 
independent poems. Difference in interpretation is also due to the 
fact that some scholars attribute a future sense to the verbs in 
vv. 2b, 3, 6 and 7, and therefore regard the oracle as a prediction; 
whereas others think that these verbs are historical references to 
events that had already taken place. A third reason for disagree- 
ment among scholars concerning the construction to be put upon 
this oracle, is the fact that the oracle does not contain any clues, 
which indicate the circumstances prevailing at the time of its de- 
livery. All that can be definitely inferred, is that the people of 
Jerusalem were engaged in a joyous celebration, of which the 
prophet did not approve. 

What was the occasion for the outburst of joy on the part of 
the populace? Why did not the prophet share the mood of the 
people? Why did the prophet regard the feasting and revelry ill- 
timed? Why was he provoked by the joy and mirth of the inhabi- 
tants of Jerusalem? Why should rejoicing be regarded as a serious 
transgression, meriting the punishment of death? To none of these 
questions can a definite answer be given, and if we resort to as- 
sumptions, a number of answers are possible. 

(a.) It is possible to assume, that the celebration marked the 
consummation of the plans for revolt. V.1" seems to indicate 
that the peopie had gone up on their housetops, in order to witness 
a spectacle.” It is very possible that the spectacle in which the 
people were interested, was the bringing into Jerusalem, as a 
prisoner, Padi, the deposed King of Ekron, who had refused to 
join the coalition against Assyria. If we assume that the decision 
to revolt was accompanied by great rejoicing and joyous celebra- 
tions, then we must conclude that the people were confident, that 
their undertaking would be crowned with success, that the deter- 
mination to break the Assyrian yoke was regarded as a fait 


A Critical Source Study 105 


accomplis. The anguish of the prophet on the other hand would 
indicate, that he did not share the optimism of the people round 
about him; that he anticipated quite a different outcome of events. 
If vv. 2b, 3, 5ff. are taken as predictions, then the forebodings of 
the prophet were indeed dark. From the point of view of the 
problems considered in this study, the extreme form of the pun- 
ishment threatened in v. 14 is of special significance. 

The difficulty with this interpretation is that vv. 9-11 seem to 
imply that shortly before this occasion, there was a panic in Jeru- 
salem, and last minute defence had to be resorted to, in order to 
protect Jerusalem from a siege. Those scholars, who assume that 
these prose verses were not a part of the original prophecy, but 
that they were interpolated by a later writer, escape this difficulty. 

(b.) Another possible assumption is that the celebration took 
place shortly before the battle of Eltekeh, when the news reached 
Jerusalem, that the long expected Egyptian troops had arrived. If 
there was any possibility of catching a glimpse of the advancing 
Egyptian army, it would have been very natural for the inhabitants 
of Jerusalem to ascend to their housetops, in order to view the 
reinforcements, upon which they had based all their hopes. The 
contrast between the mood of the prophet and that of the people, 
in accordance with this hypothesis, must have been caused by their 
respective attitudes towards Egypt. The prophet had no faith in 
Egypt. He, therefore, could not share the popular assurance of 
success. He intuitively felt that the Egyptian reinforcements would 
not make it possible for the Palestinian allies to drive back the 
Assyrian hosts. As in the case of the former hypothesis, it is 
necessary to assume that vv. 2b, 3, 5 ff. are predictions, forebodings 
of the suffering that the people of Judah would soon undergo. If 
we accept this hypothesis, then we must assume a late date for 
the recognition, on the part of Isaiah, that Assyria too is vulnerable, 
and that she would be subjected to Divine punishment. 

(c.) A third possibility is that the outburst of joy was caused 
by the news that Sennacherib had agreed to accept tribute, and to 
end the blockade of Jerusalem. The news probably reached Jeru- 
salem at a time when all thought of successful resistance to Assyria 
had been given up; when the people were momentarily expecting 
a fate similar to that of Samaria twenty years earlier. The Judeans 


106 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


had probably not expected that Sennacherib would allow them to 
buy the security of Jerusalem; they had probably heard of Senna- 
cherib’s cruel treatment of Ashkalon and the pro-Egyptian party 
in Ekron; and they knew that Sennacherib had special reason for 
wreaking vengeance on Judah, because Hezekiah had played a lead- 
ing role in fomenting the revolt. Consequently, the news that Sen- 
nacherib, contrary to expectation, had agreed to accept tribute, 
would have very naturally occasioned an outburst of joy.” The 
implication of vv. 2b and 3, in accordance with this hypothesis, 
is clear.” The prophet is trying to remind the celebrants that they 
have not come together to celebrate heroic deeds. He is calling 
their attention to the ignominious conduct of the Judean soldiery 
on the field of battle. What is not clear, however, is the reason 
for the prophet’s pessimism. Is it probable that the prophet realized 
that the relief afforded by the raising of the blockade was a temp- 
orary one, and that the danger which the people had sensed but a 
short time earlier was not yet over? How can such premonition 
be accounted for?” 

(d.) Another possible interpretation is that the occasion for 
rejoicing was the final retreat of the Assyrian army. In accordance 
with this view, the mad exaltation of the people is clear,” and the 
contrasting reaction of the prophet is equally clear, if we keep in 
mind the prophet’s interpretation of History. The course of events 
had proven the inability of the Allies as well as of Egypt to cope 
with Assyria. To the prophet, it was clear that the Assyrian dis- 
aster had not been brought about by human effort, but through the 
intervention of God. Consequently, he expected that the miraculous 
deliverance of Jerusalem would have a sobering effect upon the peo- 
ple: therefore, when instead of a spiritual regeneration, he witnessed 
mad scenes of revelling and rejoicing, he was greatly disappointed. 
And instead of the comforting speeches he had given during the 
period of crisis, he now uttered dark forebodings of a crisis even 
greater than the preceding. 

The last hypothesis has a great deal in its favor. All the elements 
of the prophecy, excepting 13d, harmonize with that construction. 
Accordingly the spectacle, which the people had gone up to see, 
was the northward march of the disorganized remnants of the once 
powerful Assyrian army. The joy of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 


A Critical Source Study 107 


upon the sudden release of the Assyrian stranglehold, can easily 
be imagined. It has already been indicated that the anguish of 
the prophet, who had anticipated for so long a time, that out of 
the crucible of suffering there would emerge a spiritually changed 
people, a holy remnant, was a most natural reaction to the ex- 
uberance of the people about him, whose conduct did not indicate 
any trace of appreciation of the spiritual significance of the events 
that had transpired. The contemptuous reference to the fate of the 
Judean soldiery during the crisis, is very much in place. The 
prophet is interested in emphasizing the thought that they can not 
attribute the deliverance of the city to their own efforts. There is 
also a logical reason for including the description of the mad efforts 
to prepare the city for a siege. The prophet wants to compare 
their failure to trust in Divine assistance, and their reliance upon 
vain human efforts at the time that the danger was imminent, with 
their failure to recognize after the danger was over the role that 
their God had played during the crisis. The second failure is in 
the eyes of the prophet a more serious offense than the first. 
Revelry and feasting in place of penitence and contrition of heart 
is an iniquity which death alone can expiate. If it were possible 
to prove that this hypothesis is correct, then this prophecy would 
become a very important source, and only such theories concerning 
the attitude of the prophet before and during the crisis would 
become acceptable, as harmonize with the attitude of the prophet 
after the crisis, that this hypothesis implies. This, however, is not 
the case. 

(e) It has been pointed out above, that it is not easy to harmon- 
ize 13d with the last hypothesis. In fact, it is not easy to reconcile 
13d with any of the hypotheses suggested above. If we take 13d 
as a starting point, we might conclude that this prophecy was de- 
livered during the blockade, during those dark moments, when it 
seemed that Jerusalem was nearing its end, when all hope of de- 
liverance had been given up. Accordingly, the revelry and feasting 
were not indulged in because of a joyous situation, but rather be- 
cause of reckless desperation—complete abandonment before the 
grand finale. Such an attitude would have undoubtedly surprised 
the prophet and called forth his severest censures. To the prophet, 
who believed that human events were controlled by the Divine Will, 


108 Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


there was a way of avoiding the seemingly inevitable crash, and 
that was, repentance, sincere determination to accept the Divine 
standards in human conduct. Accordingly, there could have been 
ne greater folly than the attitude implied in the words 
mio. amp 1D nw 5398 Such folly must necessarily result in 
the punishment it merits-——-death. It is hard to reconcile 11b and c 
with this construction. There are other difficulties; nevertheless, this 
view is not an impossible one. 

(f) If we separate 12ff. from the preceding and regard it as an 
independent poem, it is possible to accept any one of the above 
hypotheses concerning the first oracle and hypohtesis e in regard to 
12ff. f 

If we accept the fifth hypothesis, and if we also assume that 
Isaiah’s warning was heeded, that the mad revelling was stopped 
and replaced by a true penitence, such as is indicated by the attitude 
of Hezekiah upon the receipt of Sennacherib’s letter, then we may 
further assume that the change in Isaiah’s attitude towards Assyria 
took place during those bitter moments when all hope of saving 
Jerusalem had been given up, simultaneously with a psychological 
change on the part of the entire population. 

All the five hypotheses mentioned above, take for granted that 
xx11 1-15 belongs to the period in which Sennacherib’s invasion of 
Judah took place. There is no reason for doing so.” It is possible 
that during some other period of the prophet’s career, the inhabitants 
of Jerusalem indulged in a celebration, of which the prophet did 
not approve. If so, this oracle has no bearing on the problems 
considered in this study. 


APE A07.0 
A DESCRIPTION OF THE DESOLATION OF JUDAH 


These verses are undoubtedly a contemporary reference to the 
devastation of Judah, as a result of a foreign invasion. There is no 
reference to the enemy by name, consequently, there is no way of 
determining definitely, to what enemy Isaiah is referring. The 
description of the conditions in Judah is very suitable for the period 
during which Sennacherib ravaged the entire country, and it is very 
tempting to assume that the oracle of which these verses are a part, 
was delivered during or shortly after Sennacherib’s invasion. 


A Critical Source Study 109 


Some scholars believe that the first chapter is a prophecy or a 
series of prophecies delivered during the early part of Isaiah's 
career, shortly after his call. They, therefore, assume that the 
enemy who had devastated the country are the Syrians and Ephraim- 
ites during the Syro-Ephraimitic War. The chief objection to this 
theory is the word oy . It is not likely that Isaiah would have 
used the word 4; when referring to Judah’s sister kingdom. 
The force of this objection is strong, nevertheless, at the time that 
the entire country of Judah was in ruins, because of the havoc and 
destruction of the invading armies of Israel] and Syria, it would 
not have been impossible to refer to them as “foreigners who are 
devouring the. land.” Most scholars believe that this phrase 
is much more appropriate as a reference to the Assyrians and are 
inclined to favor the former view. 

It is not necessary to assume an early date for Chapter I (“The 
Great Arraignment”), because of its position. The fact that Chapter 
II has an independent superscription indicates that Chapter I may 
have circulated for a time as an independent fly-leaf. When this 
fly-leaf was brought together with the other collections of Isianic 
prophecies to form one collection (CH. I-x11) it was probably 
placed by the editor as the opening chapter, because of its general 
character, and because it serves so well as an introduction to the 
ideas which are characteristic of Isaiah, and to the point of view 
which motivated him during his entire career. 

Some scholars have tried to prove an early date for CH. 1 on the 
basis of internal evidence. The arguments presented are vague 
and unconvincing. Moreover, it is not possible to draw inferences 
concerning the date of one part of the chapter from evidence based 
on another part, because both were not necessarily delivered at the 
game time. There are some scholars, who regard the entire chapter 
as an oratorical unit, but most scholars believe that it contains 
summaries of oracles delivered at different times. Skinner suggests 
that these oracles were probably delivered during one period of the 
prophet’s career. That may be, but there is no reason for assuming 
that it is necessarily so. 

From the above analysis, it appears, that it is very probable 
that vv. 7-9 represent the description of an eye-witness of conditions 
in Judah caused by the events referred to in II K xvm 13. If 


110 ~ Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine 


so, the vivid description of the extremities to which Judah was 
reduced, form an important supplement to the matter-of-fact state- 
ment taken from the royal annals. Furthermore, the correspond- 
ence between the picture presented by these verses, and that implied 
by the Assyrian sources, tends to confirm the historicity of the 
Assyrian sources. It is important to remember, however, that all 
conclusions based on these verses are based on an assumption. 


Notes to Chapter III 111 


1] have not given any title to this collection of prophecies, because it is difficult 
to do so. The dominant motif is the denunciation of the Egyptian Alliance, but 
it contains also anti-Assyrian elements, as well as oracles that are not specifically 
related to the political situation in Western Asia and Egypt during the second 
half of the 8th Century B.C.E. I deemed it advisable, however, to treat these 
chapters as one unit. 

2Prism fragment of Sargon (Sm. 2022) lines 29-35, discovered by G. Smith— 
Discoveries, pp. 288ff. Published by Winckler. K. S. II pl. 45 b. Transcribed and 
translated v. I pp. 188 and 189. See Jirku’s Comment to II K XVIII, 1-8 (p. 175). 
Of special interest is the phrase used in referring to the Pharoah “‘malku la musezi- 
bisunu”’ (a king who could not help them) cf. I XXX 5. 

%Isaiah’s warning to the Philistines (XIV 28-32) may have been motivated by 
the desire to prevent that change of policy from taking place. 

This does not imrply that these scholars do not recognize that these chapters 
contain a great deal of unrelated material. There is no doubt that in their present 
form, these chapters contain extraneous material, which was not present in the 
original collection. 

5 See note above concerning extraneous material now part of Ch. XXVIII- 
XXXIII, which may not have been present in the original collection prepared by 
Isaiah’s disciples. 

oT. AKA/E. 

7 Ewald regards XXVIII 1—XXX 7 as one oration (pause before XXIX 1). 
and XXXII 8—XXXII 20 as a supplement written in retirement. 

8 These scholars do not deny that these chapters represent a literary unit; i. e. 
that they constituted an independent collection before they were incorporated into 
the book of Isaiah. (Ch. I-XXXIX). 

8Before the Syro-Ephraimitic Alliance. or after the destruction of Damascus, 
(otherwise there would have been a reference to the Kingdom of wWamascus) very 
likely at the time that the Northern Kingdom was preparing to make its fatal 
plunge. 

10Tt is not necessary to assuntre that the prophecy was given twice; it may be 
assumed instead, that when the prophecies in regard to Hezekiah’s desire to 
make an alliance with Egypt were first collected and edited, whether by Isaiah or 
by one of his disciples, these verses were added. The reasons for this inclusion 
would correspond to the reasons suggested for the assumed repetition. 

Uf this oracle had been repeated, it might very naturally have been included in a 
collection of prophecies made during the period when the oracle was delivered 
the second time. 


12 The nature of the prophecy is such, as to make it difficult for those who maintain 
this view, to suggest a probable date. Some scholars ascribe it to the same period 
as III 16-IV 1. Other scholars object to the assumption that XXXII 9-14 and 
III 16 ff. are synchronous. 

13 Cf. Isaiah’s attitude 4xpressed in XXII 1-15. Wilke (p. 89) believes that the 
fierce tone is due to the fact that it was expressed at the height of the crisis. 
Duhm suggests, on basis of v.29, that this oracle was intended for Isaiah’s disciples. 

4% Cf. Staerk pp. 1387. fi. 


1 A crucial question. Upon the answer given it, depends in large measure our 
conception of the personality of the prophet, and his attitude during the critical 
days of 701. Did Isaiah believe in the inviolability of Zion at all times? Did he 
ever waver in that belief? cf. XXXII 9-15. 


16In order to stress the vicious circle, I have put the proposition rather bluntly. 
It might have been fairer to say that most scholars can not accept Skinner’s 
conclusion, because they can not accept his premise. Most scholars’ do not agree 
that it was “natural’’ for the prophet, even if it be admitted that he was in a 
semi-ecstatic condition, to have made such an abrupt transition from denunciatory 
to consolatory prophecy. 


112 Notes to Chapter III 


17 Staerk separates XXai 4 ff. from XXXI 1-3. Accordingly, he places the 
former in the same period as XIV 24-27 and XVII 12-14 (the destruction of 
Assyria, in close relation with the saving of Judah—a sudden crash). 

Cheyne regards XXXI 5-9 as an independent oracle, and despite the specific mention 


of “iWN in v.8, he assumes that the reference is to the Syrians. 
18 4p as variant gloss to 4a and v. 8 as a variant gloss to v. 7. 


19 Vv. 6 and 7% Duhm regards as a non-ISianic insertion, similar in character 
to XXX 18-26; 8b and 9 not related to 8a. Duhm admits the possibility of v. 4 
bdlonging to vv. 1-3, but in that case, the figure has to be understood in an 
opposite sense. If. v. 4 belongs to the preceding, Duhm believes there is a gap 
between v.3 and 4. Furthermore, Duhm does not believe 4b a natural sequel 
to 4a. From the above analysis, Duhm concludes that the whole chapter is 
not Isianic, but the work of a redactor, who incorporated genuine Isianic fragments. 

207 XXIX 9 ff. is takan as a continuation of XXIX 1-8, the analysis of the 
latter must indicate a reason for Isaiah’s hearers’ astonishment (v. 9). If we 
assume that the original oracle was a prediction against Judah, how did Isaiah 
surprise his hearers? (He himself refers to this monotonous repetition of the 
same theme (XXVIII 9f.). Is it by announcing that their God, instead of pro- 
tecting Jerusalem, would fight against ft? 


2 .Cheyne’s analysis is similar to Marti’s. He regards XXIX 4b, 5, 7, 8 as 
non-Isianic. The oracle is limited accordingly to 1-4a, 6, a prediction of a visita- 
tion of Judgment upon Jerusalem, “‘irremediable ruin to God’s altar city.”” The 
Isianic part of Ch. XXXI Cheyne limits to 1-4. Vv. 5-9 he regards as a composite 
of later insertions. He believes that 8b and 9a do not suit context; that vv. 
6, 7 are a marginal gloss which resemble XXIX 7, 8. 


22It is not necessary to assume that the Revolt was decided upon immediately 
after the death of Sargon, (although the death of Sargon would have furnished 
a logical occasion for revolt). If it is assumed that the instigation for revolt 
came through Merodach Balladin (accordingly the embassy must have been sent 
during Morodach Balladin’s second reign, 702) then this oracle (interpreted as a 
synthesis of an anti-Judah and an anti-Assyria prediction) may have been de- 
livered between 705 and 702. 

23The implication of the phrase MIpy mano wh can only be either to bring 
battle to the gate of the enemy, of else to drive out the invader and pursue to the 
gate. Skinner, who believes that vv.4 and 6 may be Isianic, admits that this phrase 
would have been ‘‘remarkable” for Isaiah. 

*1f so, XXIX 20 must refer to Sennacherib. 

2 Cf. XXII 1-14, and the interpretation thereof (p. 105f.). 

7% Accordingly, all the anti-Assyrian oracles must be placed after the timre when 
Hezekiah had agreed to pay tribute. This hypothesis, therefore, can not be enter- 
tained by anyone who assigns any anti-Assyrian oracles to an earlier period. See 
discussion of X 5-84. 


2? Some scholars do not place this prophecy in quite so late a period. They 
assume that the tyrant referred to is one of the Persian Kings. The historic 
allusions are so vague that it is not possible to reach a definite conclusion, one 
way or another. Skinner uses this vagueness as an additional argument in support 
of the contention that this chapter is not Isianic. Skinner maintains that during 
the latter part of his career, Isaiah is quite explicit in his references to Assyria. 

*8In this group of prophecies, I have included the following: X5-34; XIV 24-27; 
XVII 12-14 and Ch. XVIII. The anti-Assyrian oracles contained in Chapters 
XAXVITI-XXXIII (XXIX 5?ff.; XXX 27-38; XXXI 4f.; XXXI 8f.; XXXIII?) have 
been discussed previously. 

I have not included IX 1-6 because it is difficult to establish the hypothesis 


suggested by Duhm, Wilke and Staerk that this oracle belongs to the period of 
Sennacherib’s invasion. There are a number of elements in this prophecy, which 


it would be difficult to harmonize with the known circumstances of that period. 


Notes to Chapter III 113 


The hypothesis of Kittel that this oracle belongs to the time when the Syro- 
Ephraimitic Invasion took place, is easier to defend. 

If this oracle is not Isianic, it surely has no bearing on our problem. Many 
scholars have declared it un-Isianic, but no one has been able to adequately support 
his contention that it is so, either on the ground of language, or ideology, or 
historic background. Of the views presented by these scholars, the most likely 
are that the author was a contemporary of Deutero-Isaiah, who was looking 
forward to the ending of the exile (Gray) or a contenrporary of Haggai and 
Zechariah, who was anticipating a Messiah of the Davidic house. Staerk is 
probably correct in declaring it Isianic and placing it in the same period as 
If 2-4** XI" 1-9eand. XAXAILI 1-5 “and 316-20. 

Staerk includes among the anti-Assyrian oracles XIV 4b-21. The prevailing 
opinion among scholars is that the tyrant referred to is Nebuchadnezzar or Nabonidus, 
or a personification of Babylon. If this prophecy is regarded as Isianic, then it must 
be assumed that the superscription 4a is an error, and that the tyrant referred to is 
either Sargon or Sennacherib (or a personification of Assyria). If it could be proved that 
this elegy was comrposed by Isaiah in 705, the year of Sargon’s death, then this prophecy 
would become an important source for the determination of the historic background 
underlying other prophecies of Isaiah, because it would indicate that Isaiah had 
reached his anti-Assyrian conclusions as early as 705. On the other hand, if it 
could be proved that this elegy was composed by Isaiah as late as 682, the year 
of Sennacherib’s death, it would serve as a refutation of the argument presented 
by the opponents of the theory that there were two campaigns, viz. that c.690, 
the time when the second campaign is supposed to have taken place, Isaiah was 
too old to take an active part in public affairs. (Isaiah began his prophetic 
career c.740; he was therefore about seventy c.690 and about eighty in 682. It 
is not probable, although not impossible, that Isaiah was active at such an advanced 
age). If the prophecy was not delivered post-eventum, but represents an antici- 
patory elegy, or if, as Staerk (p. 144 ff.) suggests, (cf. discussion of XXX 27-38 
and XXXVII 22-29) this elegy was comrposed by a disciple of Isaiah, no inferences 
can be drawn on the basis of this oracle. 

There is also difference of opinion among scholars concerning the division. 
Some follow Ewald and divide it as follows: 5-15; 16-28; 24-84; others divide 
it as follows: 5-19; 20-23; 24-27; 28-34. The latter division is accepted by 
most modern scholars. 

Many scholars maintain that X 5-34 contains oracles, which are not Isianic. 
Cheyne I B.I v. II (pp. 48-57), recognizes as Isianic only parts of the first 
oracle, vv. 5-9, 13-14; and part of the third oracle (24-34). He regards the second 
as Post-Exilic and the greater portions of the third (24-84) as editorial work. 

% Another possible explanation of the vividness of the route described, is that 
it refers to an otherwise unknown expedition of Sargon. The chief difficulty with 
this view is that in both Assyrian and Hebrew sources, there is no reference to 
any such advance on the part of Sargon. The theory advocated by Kleinert 
(1877) and by Sayce (1886) that II K XVIII 18-16 refers to a campaign of 
Sargon is not seriously considered by any of the modern scholars. 


“ Wilke believes that X 28-34 represents Isaiah’s earliest anti-Assyrian prophecy. 
He assumes that the anti-Assyrian oracles were delivered in the following order: 
xX. 28-84; (IX 1:53; XVIIT?: XXXVII 33-35, 30-32;) XM 5-19;. XA. 34-37; 
XXXIII; XIV 24-27, XVII 12-14; XXXI 5-9 (after Rabshakeh’s appeal to the 
people on the wall); XXX 27-33 (peak of the crisis); XXXVII 22-29. 

@ XVIII 5, 6; XVII 12-14; XIV 24-27. According to Wilké, the purpose of 
all three oracles was to free the worried people from fear of the Assyrians and 
to encourage them to resistance. 

Dillman, Duhm; cf. Wilke’s interpretation of the passage. 


3%414b seems to imply that Judah has already been devastated and laid waste 
at the time that this oracle was delivered. 


114 Notes to Chapter III 


8 AID 129 929391 nT. 389 pod ATT... RY? D939 OD TRL ODN 
(Cf. XXIX 7, 8) Scholars who believe that the allusion in this verse is to Assyria 
explain XVII 12a as a reference to the heterogeneous composition of the Assyrian 


army (contingents furnished by the different subject nationalities) Stade (Z.A.T.W. 
1883 p. 16) regards this passage as un-Isianic, as belonging to a later period, when 
it was believed that before the Messianic era would be ushered in, all the nations 
of the world would be assembled in a vain effort against Jerusalem, and then 
consumed by Divine Power. (Cf. Joel IV 9ff.; Zech. XII 2ff.) Marti concurs with 
this view. Ci. LV. 26, 305 XXX ob. 

% Those who do not believe that this oracle is Isianic, and assign it to a late 
period, may explain the similarity as a reminiscence of the campaigns of 701. 
See Stade Z.A.T.W. 1883 p. 16; cf. Marti’s interpretation of this passage. 

37 Note the absence of a direct reference to the pestilence in those oracles, 
which have been declared by scholars as late, composed long after the legend 
embodied in XXXVII 86 had taken root. 


38 Except 1b. This verse does not simplify the problem, but complicates it, 
for the following reasons: 


a. Napata, the capital of Ethiopia, _during the 8th century B.C.E., cannot be 
spoken of as being beyond the rivers of Ethiopia. (The reference is suitable to the 
island of Meroe, the capital during the 6th Century). 

b. The reference to rivers presents another difficulty. Up to the sixth cataract, 
the Nile does not receive any tributaries, hence Ethiopia liké Egypt has only one 
river. (See following note re Winckler’s ingenious attempt to meet the difficulty 
presented by this verse and by 2g.) 

Those scholars who assume that 1b is a gloss derived from Zeph. III. 10 
escape the difficulties mentioned. 


This assumption is challenged by Winckler (A. U. pp. 146-156). He contends 
that 1b and 2g cannot possibly refer to Ethiopia. He assumes a _ confusion 
between Kush and Kash (Southern Babylonia), and therefore concludes that the 
reference is to the swampy district beyond the Babylonian canals, the home of 
the Chaldeans. 

Mosquitoes are very abundant in the swamp districts of Southern Babylonia, 
therefore the epithet 01535 os deh YS (1a) is very suitable. la is also appropriate 
for parts of Ethiopia. It must be admitted, however, that there is more point to 
the epithet if the reference is to the Chaldeans. 


Winckler believes that 2a also supports his theory. He maintains that ©? cannot 
refer to the Nile, but can refer to the Euphrates. He tries to show that in every 


passage, where 0’ is assumed to refer to the Nile, the interpretation is faulty. He 
senses the difficulty presented by NSf22_ (2b), but he does not believe it to be an 
insurmountable one. He claims that Nf4 need not necessarily imply papyrus (an 
Egyptian product) but any kind of reed. The assumption that Nf32 does refer to 
papyrus is supported by references of Greek writers to Egyptians using light boats 
made out of papyrus, in order to enable them to carry them easily where the river 
is not navigable. 

If the meaning of "WII (2d) is “‘tall’’ (a strange word to express this concept, 
and yet the most logical explanation of the meaning of this word, when applied to 
persons) and if the most satisfactory explanation of the word W138 (2d) when 
applied to human beings, is that it refers to a glossy skin, then these epithets are 
very appropriate for the bronze skinned Ethiopians, whose splendid physique is 
alluded to by a number of Greek writers. Moreover, the Ethiopians, who succeeded 
in conquering Egypt, the memory of whose ancient prowess still lingered in the 
minds of Isaiah’s contemporaries, might have very naturally been referred to as a 
“terrible people.” 

In accordance with Winckler’s interpretation, the embassy referred to is the 
embassy sent by Merodach Balladan described in II K XX. It is important 
to note, however, that Isaiah’s tone in this chapter is quite diffarent than the 


Notes to Chapter II] 115 


tone used in II K XX. 

Although it must be admitted that it is not possible to satisfactorily explain 
1b and 2g when these verses are assumed to be réferences to Ethiopia, neverthe- 
less, since all the other allusions are appropriate, and since Winckler’s hypothesis 
presents new difficulties, most scholars disregard Winckler’s theory and favor the 
old view viz. that the land apostrophised is Ethiopia and not Southern Babylonia. 

49Many scholars regard v. 3a as an interpolation. (v. 7 is also regarded as a 
late prose addition). 

41cf. Duhm’s interpretation of XVIII 5 ff. See note 42 re Marti’s view. 

42 Marti assumes that verses 5 and 6 are a continuation of XVII 1-11. Ac- 
cordingly, the reference is not to the destruction of Assyria, but rather of the 
Syrians and Ephraimites. If the meaning of V.4 is not altogether clear when taken 
in conjunction with vv. 5 and 6, the figure becomes even more difficult to explain 
when v.4 is taken by itself (Cf. Ebrlich ‘JM1WDD Np v. III] p. 39). Ehrlich 
looks upon this chapter as a collection of prophetic fragments, which have no con- 
nection between one another. 

In this group, I have included XXIII 1-14, an oracle on the destruction of 
Tyre, XXII 15-25, an invective against the prime minister Shebna, XXII 1-14, a 
rebuke to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and I 7-9, a description of the desolation 
of Judah. I have not included Ch. XX nor XIV 28-32, although both of these 
oracles have an important bearing on our problem, because they were not composed 
during the period with which this study is concerned. The former clearly reveals 
Isaiah’s attitude in 711 during the revolt of Ashdod and makes it necessary to 
date accordingly all prophecies in which a different attitude is indicated. The 
latter oracle not only gives us an insight into Isaiah’s attitude during one of 
those critical moments, when all Palestine was in a state of ferment and the 
fate of his own people hung in the balance (either 727, the year that Tuiglath- 
Piletner died, or 720 after the Assyrian defeat at Dur-ilu) but also furnishes us 
with a clue for determining the date of the accession of Hezekiah. 

I have not included a discussion of XXIII 15 ff. or XIX 16-25 because scholars 
are pretty well agreed that these oracles are not Isianic. I have also not included 
XIX 1-15, which probably is Isianic, because it does not shed any light on the 
problems discussed in this study. 


If XIX 1-15 is Isianic, it probably belongs to an earlier period of the prophet’s 
career;—possibly, the period following the conquest of Piankhi, when a number 
of local Delta dynasts tried to assert their independence and were quarrelling 
with one another. (Breasted, in describing that period, quotes several verses 
from this oracle. He suggests that no truer picture of that time could possibly 
be portrayed). If this interpretation is correct, then one deduction of importance 
can be mrade viz. that the prophet had a very intimate knowledge of conditions 
in Egypt. If the “fierce” king who shall rule over them’, (v. 4) should not, be 
interpreted as an Ethiopian conqueror, but as an Assyrian, then the prediction 
that a series of calamities would befall Egypt, may be regarded as another attempt 
to emphasize the futility of reliance upon Egypt. Even if such an interpretation 
is possible, there is no need of regarding XIX 1-15 as a source from which 
information can be derived concerning Sennacherib’s third campaign. 

44In accordance with this hypothesis and the preceding one the reference to the 
Assyrians (v. 13) is very difficult to explain. No inference can be made, however, 
on the basis of this reference, because the reference to the Chaldeans is equally 
dificult. The meaning of the verse is not clear. 

#Shebna, evidently was not entirely discredited, because he still held office 
after Eliakim was appointed in his place. Cf. XXXVI 13, 22. 

46 Vy, 1b and 2a undoubtedly refer to a contemporary situation. 

4TNot necessarily. Going up on the roof may have been a customary feature 
in a celebration. Cf. Judges XVI 27. 

48JI K XVIII 37. harmonizes with this view. It would have been natural for 
Hezekiah to have become panic stricken, and to have declared the day that the 


116 Notes to Chapter III 


demand was made for the surrender of Jerusalem M383) MOMDIN) AIS OO) if the 
demand for the surrender of the city came after the people of Jerusalem had been 


led to believe that Sennacherib had agreed to accept tribute and to spare the city. 

48 In accordance with this view, the spectacle which the Jerusalemites had gone 
up on their roofs to witness, was the withdrawal of the Assyrian troops, that 
had been blockading the city. 

507f we assume that Isaiah did not trust Sennacherib, that he did not regard 
the crisis over, when the news reached Jerusalem that Sennacherib had agreed to 
accept tribute, then, there is no room for the theory that Isaiah recognized Assyria’s 
culpability, because of a shock he received when Sennacherib demanded the surrender 
of Jerusalem. The theory, that Sennacherib’s requst for the surrender of the 
city was an act of perfidy, is discussed in connection with the analysis of Ch. XXXIII. 

S1 Particularly so, if we assume that this speech was delivered after the eyents 
described in II K XIX 35, 

S27] have not mentioned a hypothesis suggested by Winckler, that the prophet 
is not referring to the deliverance of Jerusalem from a siege, but to the capture 
of the Babylonian city of Sippar by the Elamites, because, with all due respect to 
the ingenious scholar, the theory is far fetched. It is true that the reference 
to Elam in v. 6 is very puzzling; that the explanation usually given, that the 
reference is to the heterogeneous elements, of which the Assyrian army was cont 
posed, is not satisfactory; but, it is not fair, in order to escape a difficulty presented 
by one verse, to put an unnatural construction on the remaining portion of the text. 


117 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


A. ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES AND EXCAVATIONS. 


Hanpcock, P. S. P. 
HivprecutT, H. V. 


HitprecuT, H. V. 
Layarp, A. H. 


Layarp, A. H. 
Layarp, A. H. 


SMITH, GEORGE. 
ANDRAE, W. 


Buiss, F. J. AND 
Dickie, A. C. 

Buss F. J. 

MacauisTer, R. A. S. 


Mesopotamian archaeology. London, 1912. 

The excavations in Assyria and Babylonia. 
Philadelphia, 1904. 

Explorations in Bible lands during the 19th 
Century. Philadelphia, 1903. 

Discoveries in the ruins of Nineveh and 
Babylon. London, 1853. 

Nineveh and Babylon. London, 1882. 

A second series of the monuments of 
Nineveh. London, 1853. 

Assyrian discoveries. New York, 1875. 

Die Festungswerke von Assur. Textband, 


Tafelband. Leipzig, 1913. 


Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894-1897. Lon- 
don, 1898. 

Mound of many cities. London, 1898. 

A century of excavations in Palestine. 


London, 1925. 


B. ASSYRIOLOGY AND THE BIBLE. 


BarTon, G. A. 


Deuitzscu, F. 
GRESSMANN, H. 


JerRemias, A. 
Jinku, A. 
Mercer, S. A. B. 
Pincues, T. G. 


Rocers, R. W. 
Sayce, A. H. 


SCHRADER, E. 


Archaeology and the Bible. (4th ed.). 
Philadelphia, 1925. 

Wo lag das Paradies? Leipzig, 1881. 

Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten 
Testamente. Tubingen, 1909. 

Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten 
Orients. Leipzig, 1904. 

Altorientalischer Kommentar zum Alten 
Testament. Leipzig, 1923. 

Extra-Biblical sources for Hebrew and 
Jewish History. New York, 1913. 

The Old Testament, in the light of the 
historical records and legends of Assyria 
and Babylonia. London, 1903. 

Cuneiform parallels to the Old Testament. 
New York, 1912. 

Fresh light from the ancient monuments. 
New York, 1895. 

Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. 
Giessen, 1883. 


118 


SCHRADER, E. The cuneiform inscriptions and the Old 
Testament, translated from the second 
enlarged German edition by Rev. Owen 
C. Whitehouse. London, 1885-88. 

ZIMMERN, H. AND Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testa- 

WINCKLER, H. ment. 1903. 


C. History—-GENERAL WORKS. 


Cambridge Ancient History, v.3 New 
York, 1925. 


Hara Hk: The ancient history of the Near East. (Sth 
ed.). London, 1920. 

Maspero, G. C. C. Histoire ancienne des peuples de |’Orient, 
classique, v.35. Paris, 1899. 

Meyer, E. Geschichte des Alterthums. Stuttgart, 
1910-1913. 

OxmsTeEAbD, A. T. E. History of Assyria. New York, 1923. 

Raw inson, G. The five great monarchies of the ancient 
eastern world. London, 1862-1867. 

Rawtinson, H., Outline of the history of Assyria. London, 
les: 

2ocers, R. W. A history of Babylonia and Assyria. (6th 
ed.). New York, 1915. 

TIELE, -C. P. Babylonisch-assyrische Geschichte. Gotha, 
1886-88. 

WIncKLER, H. Geschichte Babyloniens und _ Assyriens. 
Leipzig, 1892. 

Ewatp, G. H. A. The history of Israel. Translated from the 


German, edited by R. Martineau, J. E. 
Carpenter and J. E. Smith. London, 


1869-1886. 

KitTe, R. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. (5th ed.). 
Gotha, 1922. 

Kittet, R. A History of the Hebrews, translated by 
John Taylor. London, 1908. 

fever, E. Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstimme. 
Halle, 1906. 

McCurpy, J. F. History, Prophecy and Monuments. New 
York, 1911. 

Sein, E. Geschichte des Israelitisch - Juedischen 
Volkes. Leipzig, 1924. 

Simcuont, J. N. History of Israel (in Hebrew). Berlin, 
1922. 

Srape, B. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Berlin, 


1885-1888. 


WELLHAUSEN, J. 


BREASTED, J. H. 
Bunce, E. A. T. W. 


119 


Israel in Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edi- 
tion. 

A History of Egypt. New York, 1924. 

History of the Egyptian People. London, 
1914. 


D. History—-MoNoGRAPHS. 


StTaERK, W. 
OxmstTeEap, A. T. E. 
OxumsTEaD, A. T. E. 


WeBER, Orto 
FULLERTON, K. 
KLEINERT, P. 


LANGpoN, S. 
NAGEL, G. 
PRASEK, J. V. 
Driver, S. R. 


MEINHOLD, J. 
WILKE, F. 


BEzo.p, C. 


Bezo.p, C. 


Bezo.p, C. 


Das assyrische Weltreich im Urteil der 
Propheten. Gottingen, 1908. 

Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of 
Assyria. New York, 1908. 

Western Asia in the Days of Sennacherib. 
Proceedings, Amer. Hist. Ass’n. 1909. 
pp. 94ff. 

Sanherib, Koenig von Assyrien 705—681. 
Leipzig, 1905. 

The Invasion of Sennacherib. (Bibliotheca 
Sacra). Oberlin, 1906. 

Theologische Studien u. Kritiken, 1877. 
pp. 167-180. 

Evidence for an advance on Egypt by Sen- 
nacherib in the campaign of 701-700 
mG. eJ.A.0°8., | v.244 pp. 2052274: 

Der Zug des Sanherib gegen Jerusalem 
nach den Quellen dargestellt. Leipzig, 
1902. 

Sanherib’s Feldztge gegen Juda. Berlin, 
1903. V. G. M. 1903, No. 4. 

Isaiah: His Life and Times. London, 1908. 

Die Jesajaerzahlungen. Gottingen, 1898. 

Jesaja und Assur. Leipzig, 1905. 


E. ASSYRIAN INSCRIPTIONS. 


Die Thontafelsammlungen des_ British 
Museum Sitzungsber. d. Kgl. Preuss. 
Ak. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1888, pp. 745- 
103. 

Catalogue of the cuneiform tablets in the 
Kouyunjik collection of the British Mu- 
seum. London, 1889-99. 

Kurzgefasster Ueberblick ueber die baby- 
lonisch-assyrische Literatur. Leipzig, 


1886. 


120 


SCHRADER, E. 


OtmsteaD, A. T. E. 


Layarp, H. 
Raw.inson, H. C. 
LipzBaRsky, M. 


MESSERSCHMIDT, L. 


SCHROEDER, O. 


Bupce,: BE: As Tu WwW? 


Lau, R. J. 
LucKENBILL, D. D. 
SmiTH, GEORGE. 
SMITH, GEORGE. 
SMITH, S. 


BEzo.p, C. 
Evetts, B. T. A. 
Kine, L. W. 
MEISSNER, B. AND 


Rost, P. 
MeENANT, J. 


Pocnon, H. 
WINCKLER, H. 


Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. Sammlung 
von assyrischen und_babylonischen 
Texten in Umschrift und Uebersetzung. 
Berlin, 1889-1915. 

Assyrian historiography. Columbia, Mo., 
1916. 

Inscriptions in the cuneiform character, 
from Assyrian monuments. London, 1851. 

The cuneiform inscriptions of western 
Asia. London, 1861-84. 

Altaramaische Urkunden aus Assur. Leip- 
zir 71921 (W.V.D.O.G. iy 332) 

Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen In- 
halts, v.l. Leipzig, 1911. (W.V.D.O.G. 
v.16.) 

Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen In- 
halts v.2. Leipzig, 1922. (W.V.D.O.G. 
v.37.) 

The history of Essarhaddon. London, 1880. 

The annals of Ashurbanapal. Leiden, 1903. 

The Annals of Sennacherib. Chicago, 1924. 

The Assyrian eponym canon. London, n. d. 

History of Ashurbanipal. London, 1871. 

The first campaign of Sennacherib. Lon- 
don, 1921. 

Inschriften Sanherib’s. Berlin, 1890. (K.B. 
v.I1, pp. 80-119.) 

On five unpublished cylinders of Senna- 
cherib; ZA. v.a, p. 311331. 

Studies of some rock-sculptures and rock- 
inscriptions of Western Asia. S.B.A.P. 
v.30, pp. 66-94. 

Die Bauinschriften Sanheribs. Leipzig, 
1893. 

Annales des rois d’Assyrie traduites et 
mises en ordre sur le texte assyrien. 
Paris, 1874. 

L’inscription de Bavian. Paris. 1879. 

De inscriptione Sargonis. Berolini, 1886. 


F. INTRODUCTION TO THE BIBLE, PROPHECY AND COMMENTARIES. 


Cornitiss GH, 


Introduction to the Canonical Books of the 
Bible, translated from the 5th German 
edition by G. H. Box. 1907. 


CorNiL_L, C. H. 
Driver, S. R. 


Gray, G. B. 


KUENEN, A. 


KUENEN, A. 


SmitTH, W. R. 


WELLHAUSEN, J. 


Barnes, W. E. 
BENzIGER, I. 
Burney, C. F. 


KoTTEL, R. 
Sanna, A. 


SKINNER, J. 
STADE, B. 
CHEYNE, T. K. 
CHEYNE, T. K. 
CHEYNE, T. K. 
Duum, B. 
Gorpon, S. L. 


Gray, G. B. 


Kraus, S. 


Martti, K. 
SKINNER, J. 


SmitH, G. A. 
Wane, G. W. 


121 


The Prophets of Israel. 1595. 

An Introduction to the Literature of the 
Old Testament. New York, 1920. 

A Critical Introduction to the Literature 
of the Old Testament. New York, 1913. 

Historisch - kritische Einleitung in die 
Bttcher d. Alten Testaments (Deutsche 
Ausgabe). Leipzig, 1587. 

Prophets and Prophecy in Israel. London, 
1877. 

The Prophets of Israel. (2nd edition, 4th 
printing). London, 1912. 

Einleitung in das Alte Testament von F. 
Bleek. (4th ed.). 1878. 

The Second Book of the Kings. (C.B.). 
Cambridge, 1911. 

Die Bticher der Konige. (H.C.). Leipzig 
u. Tubingen, 18599. 

Notes on Hebrew Text of Book of Kings. 
Oxford, 1903. 

Die Bucher der Konige. (N.H.). 1900. 

Die Bucher der Konige. Munster in 
Westf., 1912. 

I and II Kings. (The Century Bible.) 
Edinburgh, n. d. 

Anmerkungen zu II Konige, xv-xx. 
Z.A.T.W., 1888. pp. 172-183. 

The Book of Isaiah Chronologically Ar- 
ranged. 1870. 

Prophecies of Isaiah. 1880. 

Introduction to the Book of Isaiah. 1894. 

Das Buch Jesaja. (G.Hk.). Gottingen, 1922. 

The Vision of Isaiah, Book One. (In 
Hebrew.) Warsaw, 1920. 

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on 
the Book of Isaiah. (1.C.). New York, 
1912. 

The Book of Isaiah. (Cahana’s Commen- 
tary to the Bible.) Warsaw, n.d. 

Das Buch Jesaja. (H.C.). 1900. 

The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. (C.B.). 
Cambridge, 1915. 

Isaiah in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. 


The Prophecies of Isaiah. (W.C.). 1911. 


122 


Curtis, L. AND A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on 

Mapsen, A. A. the books of Chronicles. (I.C.). New 
York, 1910. 

Etms ig, W. A. L. The Books of Chronicles. (C.B.). Cam- 


bridge, 1916. 

Harvey-JELuiE, W. R. I and II Chronicles. (The Century Bible.) 
Edinburgh, n. d. 

KITTEL re Die Bucher der Chronik. (N.H.). 1902. 


G. MISCELLANEOUS. 


AUCHINCLoss, W. S. Standard Chronology of the Holy Bible. 
New York, 1914. 


Bentwicu, N. Josephus. Philadelphia, 1914. 

EIseuin, I. C. Sidon. New York, 1907. 

FLEMING, W. The History of Tyre. 

FLoici, V. Die Chronologie der Bibel des Manetho 
und Berossos. Leipzig, 1880. 

HOoLscH_ER, G. Die Quellen des Josephus. Leipzig, 1904. 

JeREMIAS, A. Tyrus bis zur Zeit Nebukadnezzar. 1891. 

JosEpuHus, F. Antiquities of the Jews, translated by W. 
Whiston. 


KRAELING, E. G. H. Aram and Israel. New ‘Yrork, 1918. 
MacauisTer, R. A. S. The Philistines, Their History and Civiliza- 
tion. London, 1913. 


Paterson, A. Assyrian Sculptures; palace of Sinacherib. 
The Hague, 1915. 

PRET nite. Egypt and the Old Testament. Boston,1923. 

Rawlinson, G. The History of Herodotus. London, 1862. 

SCHNABEL, P. Berossos. Leipzig, 1923. 

SmiTH, G. A. The Historical Geography of the Holy 
Land. (16th ed.). 

SMITH, G. A. Jerusalem from the earliest times to A.D. 
70. New York, 1908. 

WINCKLER, H. Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen. Leip- 


zig, 1692. 


iene? 


= 


i. 
ey wh ; 
ila 


17 





Date Due 














f 6 ar. 
foie TS acy 


Bs 
. 
2 


PRINTED |IN U.S. A, 








ah ; BS1197 .46.H77 Cul 
| ennacherib’s invasion of Palestine: 


Princeton Theologi 


cal Seminary-Speer Library 






















































































































ea ; ‘ 
: \ oe ; : : ’ , ’ 
> i tan : ; i 73° : 
4 . * : ’ 3 wi ; ; ‘S: Le . } ’ 
aa ae ba bebe ® : ‘ e > i! : etek Fea? sy : 
; ie tar A ; ¢ ek ee ‘ " ‘ ; ‘ 
. . 3 * ey ; b 
; hae vey ‘ Toa) A : mt , : , 
: 4 . : ‘ j : 
} ; . wie ee be bee \ } : ; i ’ ’ 
. 4 Fart te Ey" A \ q MY , ‘ | 
a ; ‘ ee ee WS ie Gee eee tare tor * ; ’ ’ 
; ‘i ees 4 ae), LE Sb eS ‘ = C J . s 
: Pee et ae ai ae Bi Si paw os as q . : : 
ces : : 5, th eos ky ; ’ 
: > * ; \ . : i ‘ , . 
Pe se Pees he be he Bee AS . ie i : A 4 
bat 3 Fo eh) ey Te A . 
: ‘ ee : E Ae eat be 8256 ee te b . * ’ 
be) ‘ : re SNR See ; iu X ps oe 5 : : ‘ 
: tt be 2 eve hehe } eee ‘ " ‘ F 
: re* H Pe hee & ; : ; 4 
‘ ‘ i : : Re x a : . 
3 4 +e et RE RE LE RE O _ : oe eS 4 EN . ’ ' F's r 
: ; ix Py ? ; 4 ; » Fa | ; p ~ 
‘ : be cae ee Der ; , F > 
> | > of ee ‘ ic ce a Te ‘ : 
v te teea » Be pea T ke ; ; , fe ; 
* re? tan ‘ ia ; . 
in bp’ tk! DES be ves Toh tay: bees ‘ ; ' i 
; ; eas ae ‘ ‘ iW 4 ; i » . 
wy .e hee bars is Ley ae tos ein the : , ’ ‘ 
‘ ~ pa A ‘ as Lee ‘ ; : 
Ce pe bed be wh BO ‘ : wie ‘ 
: ; . s b , ‘ L , “ a ; i f ; 
. \ Tite ® re} be, bee ‘ Le ek ‘i vib te5 CPA $ : : 
: ' CE WS 5 i ; : ; ‘ 
‘ he’ , ao a t AG ; ; 
‘ tat 7 ea f : Pee ee te eT Re D vERE > we : i ; 
eS ee Pe Be REO be bee & hy : ; ; be my Phe oar De 
° ‘ : ke bi bE Ss PEt & 8 Sao Ye : ’ i 
. A > , , > - 2 é t aS ’ ‘ ‘ se * . 
: ‘ wae ; Py 3 > ' Gi pel bot ‘ ; 
4 . SE AE EE Ba 8 be we DP + SHE : \ i 
q ros Tae bs me eat eben ‘ | > ; 
‘ te pa be SD wa ‘ v ; ; f oe i i j Q 
‘ : se 5 ees bed 4 hes ri * > i® t > ey ’ 
be bES 204 ye3 haga BE) ; j : > Pe ’ net ¥E 
LJ . se + * pe ® + , " ‘ i . ¥ 
eb Sd i } ; ; bes ‘ : \ : . ; 
; > > eee Fs ' a, ' tes ; 
Pi Fe ¢ PEkE + SLet ' eee : ee + hey ee P te. 
' LS . sce sd ' : hd a . " A] . i » > = k Lees , . 
ie ee ee ee oF * ‘ se ' F ‘ ’ Te « 
1, pi » : : pit ; Sah Tae oes i a, ; FET e 
trae: be Pe eee Be Toc ; : Late e4 
> > a s a > s > s ' ¥ # s + ’ : » ’ ' iy Wa: ’ ; * s ® » 
PEPE FE RE VE DF Cos ee ae Piet eh & 22 $e eS DP t hee Ce ad P : oS To ‘ pees \ § ’ 4 2 
+t pb he ea Be t " > ' we 9 ’ ' ‘ ¥ ; | 5 ‘ 
- + ’ i a ’ ' ' ’ a ce? & : : i ‘ i 
ER Ta See De ESTERS SSR heh : het i 4 i : : 25 ‘ hs 
Pe ee bed beep } ee > ; ie oe, ' fia +2 ‘ d : 
PORE BEE EE FE WE bee ie ee. te pee eee ’s oe he ei wae a 
, bie be} ’ Re he ee bE RE We Wie’ Pu é hey ' ‘ > vee aa 
be EU bet od hits ves . ac i2o Es ce ven ; hey : ; : 
ee be ke ie’ i‘ ae : me's tote Ta: , , eae ak et 5 ; ‘ 
te Le ee 3 4 Ye 8 i \ beg +e ae 4 ; i A } 
at ee: ht be PAN ¥. > ei Ta ret : ye r ' ’ 
2. wx. +e Fy 3 > £ : . ‘ rq tir ‘ ‘ 
Oh Pe BErea D te ex i Recah, b r CekA be Be RE BE pes boy » ; 7 
: ‘ ee F . > ne . ¥ Y \ y. i ’ y ‘ 5, 
t Ta. a : ’ : Toi tan ae up pe ‘ ; ; , 
PY POPS be sabes { ; : : ‘ : | ; " i 
‘ ee pee le Toa 5 : SS i j velo’ , 
i : ae e aek ee eS Q Se , ‘ 
an oe @ 72 eG bu w : hal err te 4 f 
Pa: Tae Be he > Sor : ; : ar Viet : i 
eo ear 2 tie tes Be ; ik te} Fay oy ae ' ‘ ' 
v : : s ’ . : ’ vr + b * . 5 , 5 i 4 = ‘ i 
ee hh oak bat ae ee ‘ Ee ’ be ee Pe REY Fi 3 ’ . 
PETE Se Pe RE ee eet ; « Aes ee RE f i j eee : . : 
AE ve Be RS ba bes ; 2 oe eae oe | Fie Pe Ry Bee } i “ee 3 1 ES PS Pe Hi : Tec oh 
: +3 > ’ re eet te oe ee ee ae ) ; ’ ‘ ; : 
ie th bE Re Bet ¢ ‘ £8 , * 1 ' \ « ‘ : ‘ i : ; t 
; tbls g be pt oe 8 fo WERE RES , Cae’ ; be ha be i >. ud 3 
% at a ‘ Ve : ta! : : .e y act : Pe ¥ 
te hat eo ee aa ; Dt: ' Ke bd i ’ 
Liat ky ee att te ee vies ; be ae > ee ‘eae A bie ae he's 4 : : 
4 ha KY ek i fe poke we oe ' Pye kee 1 ees he 4 . i ' ; ; : 
. ¢ G © . . . r ¥ Js * . C 7 26 i " \ ‘ 4 f 
: ie eu Be pe St he ae} Ds, ® be > ; : rete S : : 
Te: tee Vee y eo se ees Th ; : i : fed 3 
ew + , +i at ee bee Peg ea : ’ ee we be : j : ; 
TRLPateTaTset eet Sas oe ‘ ; ‘ei, bers ‘ fs 
® * > » . +e ees » et ' ¥ ' ‘ ; 
De ea ee erat De } ie: : rf , 
‘Le Le ae: ey te F : eT a ; bie + Tay ’ yey } : ; . 
pe we Fa ve TZ ; Pipe pe Be ey yes i ‘ 
> BEE OP be A cf ee yee eae t wee be Hes e% ; bi gees 
Pe ne ley ¢ be. hee i yee : ‘ : ; CPt 
: 4 ¥ » : rs 2) ‘ + ‘ s » > ’ . 
; Peote’ eS teehee’ te ee : at eo a: 
= ete oe a ey Gab ort rae > : 4 ' ; ' f 
Fe Pe Le Re By ; ‘ : 1 ; : : ; 
Le ee wt , a's the p a ay “te ae RY : t ‘ f 3 ' ; 
keug f H ne eee ’ ta ne vies Rah 4 5 
ee Pe ay es ‘ Be BERD Se otf + Sipe he ey ‘ te) Pas : 
t ; > 3 7 1 see ‘ 4 C U 
ome rt Soke ee ee ee De ee ‘ . ; q : > ' eee ; 
r Fe % oes F iv ‘ ‘ ' Meee ’ hen A ; i ; 
o. ee 8 *¢ ee: ; eee ? et t wae] a he 4 * . 
ve C tee Vm an wy oy ' ? / : ; ee) 5 
, <4 . ¥ b ; ' HHP 2 Li F ‘ ‘ 
. “Se § © yy f ; * + se-h yy ARS L 4 Me ‘ id 4 Ls , 
by Stee S 2 od : Ae Si AP / io be & i Te, aes ; 
ee bey SESE EES AE PORE F nie Pe ee 4 ’ ; . 
: cae AP a reat : te tas r A eet Tee ke. ; : ' ’ . 
bee ee Poa ks ; cee * 4 se we a We’ , * ‘ 4 t 
& ‘ b p's } ears: Tete b ; +o . i 
oe Re. F ee Yess VA. F ry Se ONT pes i ; : te} i 
ai e's ee > 13 4 Res Fs _ ; ; 
eB ¢ ‘ : ; an h ; ’ ‘ 
ety , ‘ vine } 4 eh we eee ee, ye te 4 7 y eek $ ‘ ‘ 
; he F BP Gee z PEA i ete 5 ? q + + eR rar aA ve A : 
tay Tete te ae ly Paes : ; { $ ; : ‘ res a 
5 rey ; > se GR Oe Ae , ee pe 3 - / ' 
Tolar es ey, a5 : ; : ; : ‘ 
- : Se net > ; en" ‘ ; ‘ 
th aes ' ‘a : , ’ : ety ; 1 vet beet pies A a eae 7 3 
ee be} ‘tha : 4 i Gaeta ; ‘ ’ 
=e } * t he’ et tay a ae} } fey A ; ’ * « ¥ bose’ " . . mat 
; ; ' i te P 
: A se 4 ia 
ly 2 > - ‘ Ms 5 ' y $ ‘ fr ; * 4 C h Le! ' 
eH eee eae’ ‘ aes * 3 H 4 ‘oi : 
FRA fae eee ' H 4 Se Se as ear ea a : Bie ; 
: aa 7 at ' Fe eu ke f } : ' i t ' 
Se PE FE Se RO ee yo ‘ fea ¢% 5b pm PAT ere Ta: ’ ve RED ‘ eS 
bie yh 4h ‘ reat ay pes be bet > ‘ /| > ¢ 4 oe 4 t te Poy 
; cH Pee fs bie ae y . ‘ ar ‘ . t * re * ‘ 
2 ; ee ee y eae te ee pie es ye ‘ ae weve Oe + > ' f é 
’ Fe eee pie ee ‘e's eh A f 1 
i) Be 3 8 ; é te? * r , ae Fae Le A ak 7. 
oe eee oe & . * 7 ee ' oe ey ; ' ear : ‘ 
; Byer eG te + iy \ ne eed ot Gh ‘ . m : x 
‘ Beal se re bY} é ; é ; : ; ‘ Py 
re HY nie bie $ pep : Teo a roe ; ony ‘ ’ § 
3 rider ; te Peeper pe pes t ee PRB d 
; ' ae a : 2 ta . ee bh pes pie +e e k i * 
$ hrs Pose ; Piece ; #2 ek ‘gly f i : . re) 
§ : rel sit si ef pe ye pe ado as ; : ; ; 
} seo peyae ae * tECes 425 ce 4 ; ; : . ‘ 
ik har ee ae ee he +2 48s y 5 : : 
: ee 1 se pes > ; ; 4 bd? eS ; . i 
ys ae ee ba a ec et ses $2 bE ther ab > riaeh fj 4 
FORO yey Ts Pa ec ous f eye , > 4 ; £% LA 
> i ’ i Bf 34) 5 : ay ae € 4 ¥ A A ‘ A 
Tare veer 4 2% : ; oes ' ti tac ' ; > ees ; i 
; ; wes f fa > t 4 F } nie f ; ; 
4 ¢ ce fees wee eer +4, P vo > c ae . : A 
pas te eet By bee eats . J 5 ; } . 4 ‘ ¢ ; 
‘ eG pe pees ‘ bey pa se wes Me Pe > aS ets ‘ 
“ce hon a? > “oe Tay" i A ae at i" Bea ho 7 .2 4 + 
pe > ti Pi ptcay @ ’ : ’ ‘ 4 f , 
‘ , 1 a ‘ ‘ , : ; 
: Pe pike ep eg ; ‘ ' nee } ‘ i 
ba § f f dH SH Re Be ec? sé > > ; ‘ ' F s ‘ ‘ 
5% st a ee role e s 5 : F F ; ; Wie 4 
es te ae bt ee ye aeae pak rs rie et - i ‘ 
oa. Ta AE NE eet an Fe ey SF aS tarts ¢ , : ‘ey Poke 4 
as ar bi ute " : hae ; ; Stee TE A aes j : 
\ Ms » ' ‘ ei F ? 
’ } ais ; nee a4 ; a . a fs ; , ‘ 
+44 : : 5 ; — ‘ ’ ' 
; ‘ nf wat Te crs Le oes ’ A . 
t r pe @' 9 ) } aé%4 1 
: awe 4 Pee ae & TS ELE SI RARE Ae LD, #4! ‘ ‘ : res 
oe pe Pe hee se cc UN be ek ‘ ty: et 4 
‘ ht OF MEME pA. ‘ ri 4 ns 
: tat oR vs * | : 
: se hes ; Phe ied a8! SE RL BL : - 
, . ee et pees ; Wi > ; ty q 5 
, t , ‘ a ae ; ' ! see 3 ‘ 4 ; 
Page > \ Five ' eat et sey ' : j poy p / 
roe 4 ’ 46 : ye se ge} : : ‘ vey ‘ 
ae eee : co vhs aeons r ee t 4 1 : 
; ire i “fs ¥ 
: ee ee ey 2 bes ae he hee be bas / j 
. a2 int , eee 4 Lape Pigs ' : 
. , . ; > ; : , ’ ‘ ’ ‘ ‘§ ’ \ > 
‘ ee oe a f . ‘ rs t t 2 3 J 
re REE Tat ie & et pes : set yey ae : Fe. 
ee } . poet pies ‘ ; , ; : 
* e ‘ . 1 ‘ ‘ " { , : 
peg ete : To A nes ; , nie res ' > 
$ . , ; , r - . » y ’ , ’ ; - 
hs " ; : , . - . ; ’ 4 
> t , ’ ; 
re Bs ety wil ; roe .f% $ 
; : poet eee re he 1 " as & 
, set . % , ; 2 q % ' { ; 
4 A f ' ‘ ' 
' . aa 4 , 
A ay! ; las ' 
? } af 
. ; 4 ’ 3 sm 4 ' 
eet ; ° ‘ : 
: ; ' ‘ > 
, s > . ; : 


